Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (MINISTER'S VISIT).

Mr. BATEY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, during his proposed visit to the Dominions, he will travel alone or how many officials will accompany him; and whether any estimate of the cost has been arrived at?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have not yet settled who will come with me, bat my intention is that the number of officials accompanying me should in any case be small, and also limited to those who have special knowledge of the questions likely to arise for discussion. No detailed estimate of the cost has yet been made.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that this trip has been agreed upon and that no estimate of cost has been formed?

Mr. THOMAS: No, my hon. Friend must not understand that. He must understand that the value and importance of a general Empire agreement outweigh any consideration as to the mere cost of the passage.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any statement to the
House before his visit to the Dominions as to the proposals he will submit when he gets there?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who will look after things here while he is away?

Mr. THOMAS: There are such numbers of competent substitutes that I am sure there will be no difficulty.

Mr. ALBERY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can say what Dominions he proposes to visit prior to the Imperial Conference; when, approximately, he expects to leave this country; and how long he expects to be absent?

Mr. THOMAS: No definite plans have yet been made, but if my hon. friend will repeat his question later, I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question in detail due to the fact that it is proposed to hold the Conference at an earlier date?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir. I may take this opportunity of saying that the date suggested has been fixed in order to be sure of the attendance of all the Dominions. There could be nothing more fatal, in my judgment, than any Dominion finding itself unable to attend. It is far better to fix a date for all than to be premature.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE BALANCE.

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether any revised estimate has been made since this country went off the Gold Standard as to the probable favourable or adverse balance of trade for the year 1931?

Major MILNER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is still anticipated that the export and import trade of Britain will not balance in the financial year ending 31st March, 1932; and if he will state the anticipated decline in the amount of invisible exports?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that I cannot furnish at the present time an estimate in a matter so subject to modification in accordance with day to day developments.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to be able to give such an estimate?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid not before the end of the year.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to bring the Bank rate down, so that we may get a balance on the right side?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, up to date, the net result of our going off the Gold Standard has been to increase the favourable balance of trade?

COASTAL TRAOE.

Mr. LEWIS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which countries confine their coastal trade to ships under their own flag?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the information in my possession, the principal countries in which the coasting trade is absolutely reserved to national vessels are France, Greece, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Turkey, Japan, United States of America and Argentina. Brazil and Chile, whilst reserving their coasting trades to national vessels, permit foreign vessels to carry passengers between their ports. The Dominion of Canada reserves its coasting trade to British vessels.

Mr. LEWIS: Having regard to the large quantity of goods carried in vessels flying foreign flags in our coastal trade, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not desirable to make some such rule for ourselves?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Later on the Order Paper there is a question on that point.

Mr. CLARRY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the maritime regulations of other countries concerning British ships engaged in their coastal trade, he will consider proposals having as their object the development and maintenance of British coastal trade by ships of British registry and ownership?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any proposals having this object will certainly receive con-
sideration. I would point out, however, that, of the total tonnage of vessels that arrived and departed coastwise with cargoes at ports in the United Kingdom in 1930, less than 1 per cent. was foreign.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider not only making it a voyage in the United Kingdom but also in the British Empire?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a very much larger consideration, to which I cannot be expected to reply without notice.

IMPORTS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what action the Government intend to take to check the imports of carpets into this country from abroad?

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increase which has take place in imported toys; and what steps the Government propose to take to deal with this situation?

Mr. LECKIE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any official figures to show to what extent foreign goods have been dumped into this country during the last month or two?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will refer my hon. Friends to the statement I made on the subject of abnormal importations in yesterday's Debate.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply what he referred to yesterday to the imports of carpets, of which there has been an increase in the last month alone of 20 per cent. over the normal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think we had belter have the powers before we go into particular articles.

Mr. LYONS: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value in sterling of hosiery and underwear of ail classes, wholly or partly manufactured, imported into Great Britain for the period of six months ended 31st October, 1931, or the nearest available date, and the values of such imports for the corresponding periods of 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of hosiery and underwear of all kinds imported into the United Kingdom and registered during the six months
ended the 31st October, 1929, 1930 and 1931, was £3,509,000, £3,794,000 and £3,765,000, respectively.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of manufactured articles imported into this country during the past three weeks; and the corresponding figure for 1930?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which was given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on the subject of recent statistics of the imports of manufactured articles.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give the actual figures for the three weeks, as they were not given in the information yesterday?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot do it in a complete form.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of electrical machinery imported into this country since the beginning of the year and, separately, the value of electrical equipment used in cinemas?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of the imports of electrical machinery and parts thereof into the United Kingdom during the 10 months ended October, 1931, was £1,303,000. Imports of electrical equipment for use in cinemas are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, but, according to the official export returns of the United States, the value of the exports of motion-picture sound equipment from that country to the United Kingdom during the first eight months of 1931 was £123,000.

Mr. HURD: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in detail, for the latest convenient period, the volume and countries of origin of imported goods and foodstuffs which would have been classed as luxury imports and subjected to restriction in the War years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the list of articles given in the Prohibition of Import (Consolidation and Amendment) Proclamation of 30th March, 1917, which, however, included many items not of a luxury character, and to Volume II of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the
United Kingdom for 1930 which has just been published and which gives detailed particulars of the imports of merchandise into this country and distinguishes the principal countries from which goods of each particular kind were consigned.

Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any foodstuffs are included in the list?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that any foodstuffs were included in the War time list.

Sir F. HALL: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether, in connection with any proposals which may be considered by the Government for protecting British trade, regard will be had to the conditions of labour which are observed in the production of the various classes of goods and materials which are now being imported into Great Britain without restriction in competition with home industries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have at present nothing to add to what I said on the subject of our import trade in yesterday's Debate.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance which the question of the conditions of labour abroad has in this matter, and will he take it into consideration?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: indicated assent.

Sir F. HALL: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that manufactured and other goods are being imported into this country at the present time, and that the placing of these goods on the market at low prices rendered possible owing to the low wages paid in their production will impede the finding of work for the unemployed in Great Britain; and whether, pending effective steps being taken to put a stop to dumping, arrangements can be made to ensure that the place of origin of these imported goods shall be made clearly known to the buying public?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no power under the existing Merchandise Marks law to impose a general requirement that imported goods should bear an indication of origin, but many kinds of imported goods, including many of common use, have to bear such an indication. For the rest I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which I made yesterday.

RUSSIAN BUTTER.

Major CARVER: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average wholesale price realised on the market for the Russian butter imported into this country in each of the last three months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The average prices per cwt. were: August, 92s. l0d.; September, 92s. 7d.; October, 101s. 5d.

Mr. CLARRY: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to have the foreign trade-mark applied to all Russian butter entering the United Kingdom to ensure its marketing under its correct designation?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The draft of an Order-in-Council, in pursuance of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, requiring the marking of all imported butter with an indication of origin was laid before Parliament on the 10th November last. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the draft Order for his information.

Mr. McGOVERN: With the right hon. Gentleman see that this butter is dyed red!

IRON AND STKEI. INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).

Mr. CLARRY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the committee of inquiry into the iron and steel industry, initiated by the Labour Government in the early part of last year, has completed its report and recommendations; and, if so, when will that part dealing specifically with Great Britain be published?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second, the report is not drafted in such a way that it would be possible to separate the portion dealing specifically with Great Britain.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Will the whole report be published at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. This is a position which has been taken up after careful consideration.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the notice given by the President of the Board of Trade dealt with articles in
Class III; and is it no; the case that the iron and steel trade would come within that category?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but that does not refer to this report.

STATISTICS.

Major THOMAS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present national emergency, he will arrange to issue the figures of imports and exports weekly instead of monthly until such time as the balance of trade becomes favourable to this country?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, pending the introduction of legislation to deal with dumping, ho will consider the issue of weekly statistics with regard to each principal type of import into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friends will appreciate that statistics of imports and exports relating to such a short period as one week would be liable to give a misleading impression of the course of trade, and, accordingly, I am unable to adopt their suggestions, which, I may add, would involve considerable expense.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having fortnightly instead of monthly statements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that it would add very considerably to our work, and I do not think it would give us the necessary data.

Major THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps at the present time to have the statement sent to him much more frequently than has been the case in the past?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. I gather the information day by day, but I cannot get it complete. Unless it is complete it would not serve the purpose which my hon. Friends have in view.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the exports and imports between this country and Denmark, the Argentine, the United States of America, and Russia, respectively, during the year 1930?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question? What was the value of the exports and imports between this country and Russia?

The following TABLE shows the Total Declared Value of Merchandise Imported into and Exported from the United Kingdom in the trade with Denmark, the Argentine Republic, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, respectively, during the year 1930.


Country of Consignment.
Total Imports.
Exports.


Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Imported Merchandise.



£
£
£


Denmark (including the Faroe Islands)
54,117,596
10,248,522
741,668


Argentine Republic
56,665,769
25,234,173
442,006


United States of America
153,496,858
28,704,944
11,228,671


Soviet Union
34,235,002
6,771,946
2,519,355

COCOA AND CHOCOLATE (PKICES).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average wholesale price of raw cocoa and the average retail price of proprietary and non-proprietary chocolate and cocoa products so as to show the relative percentage fall in wholesale and retail prices since 1928?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As this answer is somewhat long and includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

following is the answer:

As recorded in the "Statist" the price of f.f. Accra cocoa, f.o.b. Gold Coast, was 43s. 3d. per cwt. at 27th December, 1928, and 26s. 6d. per cwt. at 5th November, 1931, a reduction of 16s. 9d. per cwt., or 39 per cent. Information in possession of the Ministry of Labour indicates that the usual retail price of certain well-known standard proprietary brands of cocoa was 2s. per lb. in December, 1928, and 1s. 9d. per lb at the beginning of November, 1931, a reduction of 3d. per lb., i.e. 28s. per cwt., or 12½ per cent. The average retail price of loose cocoa was approximately Is. 0½d. per lb. in December, 1928, and Is. per lb. at the beginning of November, 1931, or 4 per cent. lower. No information is collected officially as to the re-

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total imports from the Soviet Union were £34,235,000, and the total exports of produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, £6,771,000, and of imported merchandise exported from the United Kingdom, £2,519,000.

Following is the statement:

tail prices of chocolate and cocoa products.

RUSSIA.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to balance our trade with the Soviet Union?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated yesterday in reply to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers), the special question of our commercial relations with the Soviet Union is one on which it would be premature to make any statement while the wider question of our trade balance is under consideration.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's well-known views on luxuries, will he take some steps to prohibit or put a high tariff on the importation of caviare?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPOITATION) ACT.

Mr. MANDER: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it has been found necessary as yet to take any action under the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: So far it has not been found necessary to exercise the powers conferred by the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WEST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (LEAVE).

Major CARVER: 24.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what would have been the extra cost involved by permitting the first battalion of the West Yorkshire Regiment to have a week's leave on their recent arrival in England en route to Egypt after two years' service in the West Indies; and whether such concessions will be considered on future occasions of a similar nature?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. A. Duff Cooper): I cannot give exact figures, but the disturbance to the Trooping Programme involved in granting a week's leave in England would have cost several thousand pounds. The unit leaving the West Indies for Egypt does not usually touch English waters, and I am not able to promise that a concession could be made if similar circumstances should recur in the future.

FIELD-MARSHALS (EMOLUMENTS).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 25.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the emoluments of each of the Field-Marshals of the British Army; and whether any payments are made that are exempt from Income and/or Surtax?

Mr. COOPER: There are at present six Field-Marshals of the British Army drawing emoluments from Army funds, of whom one receives full pay at the rate of £4,000 a year as Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the others are in receipt of half pay at the rate of £1,602 a year. One of the officers on half pay draws £200 a year in addition as Constable of the Tower of London. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether any means test was applied in the case of these officers?

RESERVISTS (PAY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 26.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the number of reservists who have protested against their reserve pay being reduced from Is. a day to 9d. a day?

Mr. COOPER: No such protests have been received in the War Office.

Mr. McENTEE: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the cuts of 25 per cent. in reserve pay apply to all Army reservists; and whether he will reconsider the matter with a view to minimising the hardships caused by such cuts?

Mr. COOPER: The reduction in reserve pay applies to all reservists, but in the case of Section A reservists the reduction is not 25 per cent. but from Is. 6d. to 1s. 3d. a day. I regret that I am unable to reconsider the matter.

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether the same percentage is applied in the case of officers as in that of the noncommissioned officers and men?

Mr. COOPER: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. BUCMANAN: Why is it that these men have been singled out for a 25 per cent. reduction seeing that there was to be some basis of equality in the reductions? Why is not the same percentage applied to these men as is applied in the case of teachers?

Mr. COOPER: These men are required to do no service whatever in return for their pay, and it was considered that this sacrifice in regard to them was not more than they could bear, and, as we have received no protest, that is borne out by the result.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Were not these cuts made by a Free Trade Budget?

Mr. McENTEE: Is it not the case that a contract was entered into with these men for the period of their service and the period of their reserve, and should they not have been consulted before a cut so drastic was made?

Mr. COOPER: That would apply to every cut that was made. There was no contract.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. MACLEAN: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is compulsory for soldiers whose names are placed upon the detail board to appear for physical training; whether this forms part of their Army duties; if not, what steps, if any, are taken against
a soldier who objects to taking part in any of these exercises; and whether any information is given him as to the proper manner in which he can lodge any such objection?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The remainder, therefore, does not arise.

CADET CORPS (GRANT).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed to restore the grant to the cadet corps withdrawn by the late Government?

Mr. COOPER: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to repeat his question a little later on, I shall hope to be in a position to announce the decision of the Secretary of State.

KNIGHTSBRIDGB BARRACKS.

Sir BASIL PETO: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Knightsbridge barracks are now required for the use of troops in the London district; whether it is possible for alternative accommodation to be found; and, if not, whether he can state what saving in the annual estimates would result from disposing of the site for civilian purposes?

Mr. COOPER: Either Knightsbridge barracks or new alternative accommodation is required for the troops of the London District. The question of disposing of the Knightsbridge site is under consideration in all its bearings.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE.

Mr. DAVID WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of new appointments in the War Office since 31st March, 1914; how many of them are still occupied; the number of persons drawing pensions or retired pay Who are employed at the War Office, with the total amount of their salaries and the amount of pension and retired pay; and whether he will consider the appointment of a committee to make recommendations as to what economies should be effected at the War Office, in the inspectorate, and the colleges for the training of gentlemen cadets?

Mr. COOPER: The total staff of all grades in. the War Office military and civil approved for the current year is 2,291, as compared with 1,878 in 1914. I regret that I cannot say how many are drawing pension or retired pay or the amount so drawn. The information is not readily available and cannot be obtained without elaborate inquiries and considerable labour. As regards the last part of the question, the possibility of effecting further economies is a matter which receives constant attention and it is not considered that the appointment of another committee to examine this question at the present time would serve any useful purpose. I might point out that since the War the staff of the War Office has been examined by eight different committees of inquiry, apart from periodical examinations by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Estimates.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Major MILNER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether there has been any increase in the work of the Ministry of Pensions; why a Parliamentary secretary has been appointed to the Ministry, in view of the fact that this position was abolished by the Government of which he was the head for the years 1929–31; and whether the appointment will carry any salary, as there is no provision for the payment of salary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions in the Estimates for the current year?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by me yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The post will carry the customary salary subject to the all-round reduction in Ministers' salaries which has already been announced.

Captain FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strengthening of the Ministry by this appointment has given great satisfaction to the leaders of the ex-service movement?

Mr. MACLEAN: What provision is the right hon. Gentleman making with regard to the salary in this case since there is no provision made in the Estimate?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. If that question is addressed to the Treasury, they will answer. It is a departmental matter.

OVERTIME.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDE-MAN: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of overtime which is being worked in the departments that are dealing with the additional assessments, etc., for Income Tax and Super-tax necessitated by the recent legislation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The amount of overtime at present being worked in connection with the revision of assessments necessitated by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, is approximately 120,000 hours per week.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Would it not be possible to do away with the overtime and give employment to some people who are out of a job at present.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware of the amount of overtime that has to be worked through the hon. Member keeping us here in the morning?

Mr. McENTEE: May we have an answer as to whether it would not be possible for a considerable number of unemployed men to be employed instead of the Government having this overtime worked?

Major ELLIOT: I replied to a question on that subject put by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on the 24th September last, and I would ask the hon. Member to refer to that answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING, KINCARDINESHIRE.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that illegal trawling is taking place off the coast of Kincardineshire; and what steps he proposes to take to stop it?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): Since the beginning of this year, only one complaint of illegal trawling off the Kincardineshire coast has been received by the Fishery Board for Scotland and on investigation the evidence produced was
found to be inconclusive. The Board's cruisers have, however, been instructed to keep the area under observation.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: Will the Secretary of State consider the co-operation of the Air Force in this matter?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will bear that in mind.

RENT ARREARS (EVICTIONS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons who have been brought before either the Small Debt or the Eviction Court in both Dumbarton and Glasgow during the past four weeks for rent arrears?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The number of small debt rent cases in Dumbarton during the period stated was 42 and the number of summary removing cases 67. In Glasgow 2,204 cases—of which 1,045 were new cases—came before the Eviction Court during the same period. It has not been possible to ascertain from the Court records the number of persons brought before the Glasgow Small Debt Court for arrears of rent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it not dawn upon the Secretary of State that with such gigantic figures it is essential that he should institute some inquiry to see if he can ease the situation for these poor folk?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Perhaps the information I have given was misleading. Let me explain. The decrees for ejection granted out of 1,045 new cases was 128; and the number continued sine die to allow of payment by instalments or dismissed was 917. The number of cases continued from previous Courts was 1,159, and a decree for ejection was granted in 332, while the number continued sine die or dismissed was 827.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman notice what is at stake here? Over 100 evictions have been granted and there are nearly 1,000 cases which were adjourned, which makes a total of 1,000 people who do not know what their fate is to be.

Mr. SPEAKER: Those figures are given in the answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Secretary of State give us the figures for this year and last year? Has there been any increase?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I shall be glad to give him an answer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to ask the Secretary of State if he will (make inquiries and see that some provision is made for these 400 or 500 people who are going to be evicted and consequently homeless?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: But there is provision now. They should apply to the public assistance, committees.

AGRICULTURAL SEXURITY CORPORATION.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Agricultural Security Corporation for Scotland has been set up; and if it is now possible for Scottish farmers to obtain long-term credits under the terms of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Agricultural Securities Corporation for Scotland has not yet been set up. The draft articles of association, which have been approved by the Department of Agriculture, are at present under consideration by the banks interested. When the articles are adopted by the banks there will, as far as I am aware, be no further cause for delay.

Mr. SMITH: Last July, when I put a similar question, I was told that it was the Treasury that was holding up the formation of this corporation. Is there any difference in the position now?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: : Certainly. I cannot speak for what was the position in July, but it certainly is not the case that the Treasury is holding up the matter now. The draft articles of association have been approved by the Government and are now under consideration by the banks.

Mr. SMITH: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the corporation will be set up? For over two years we have had to wait.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As I have said, as far as I can see, the moment the articles of association have been approved by the banks there is likely to be no further delay at all.

Mr. SMITH: May I point out—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put any further question on the Paper.

Mr. MACPHERSON: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that this corporation will begin to act? Is he aware that for the last two years English farmers have had the benefit of the Agricultural Credits Act, while the Scottish farmers have had no such benefit?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I can only repeat my statement that, as far as I can see, there will be no cause of delay at all when the banks have adopted the articles of association.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).

Mr. TINKER: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will consider amending the Mines Act so as to place the boys under 16 years of age working below ground in the same position as boys of the same age working on the surface, so that they shall not be employed between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I do not think it would be wise in present circumstances to add to the difficulties of organisation and the cost of production of coal by the compulsory substitution of adult for boy labour on early and late shifts. I cannot therefore hold out hope of early legislation on this subject.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently, on 24th July a boy was told to go on the night shift, and when his parents objected he was discharged?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Minister look into this with fresh eyes? We would like the National Government to do a little better than its predecessor.

Mr. FOOT: Any representations from responsible quarters will receive adequate consideration.

MONMOUTHSHIRE (OUTPUT AND WAGES).

Mr. DAGGAR: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the average output per person employed in mines in
Monmouthshire from 1920, each year, to 1930 and also the average wages paid per person for the same period?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate such information as I have in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that particulars of wages paid in Monmouthshire are not available, but I will give figures for South Wales and Monmouthshire as a whole.

Following is the information:

Year.
Output of Coal per person employed at mines in Monmouthshire.
Average Annual Cash Earnings of all Coalmine workers in South Wales and
Monmouthshire.




Tons.
£


1920
…
180
252


1922
…
225
127


1923
…
233
136


1924
…
213
139


1925
…
212
139


1927
…
250
124


1928
…
274
126


1929
…
280
129


1930
…
274
117

NOTE.—The particulars of earnings for the years 1927–1930 relate to the years ended 31st January, 1928,1929,1930and 1931. Earnings in the last named period were affected by a dispute in January, 1931.

The years 1921 and 1926 have been omitted as they were affected by prolonged national disputes.

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any steps have been taken by the Government to ensure that the convention with regard to the hours of work of mine workers shall be raised and supported at the next meeting of the International Labour Office?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The matter is not one which calls for further formal action by an International Labour Conference, the Convention having been agreed by the last conference and its ratification being now a matter for the nations concerned. I expect to have an opportunity in the near future to discuss informally with the Governments of the principal countries interested the question of ratification.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Act, under which the miners are working at present, will end in July next year, and, in view of that fact, will he give this matter serious consideration its the two questions of the International Convention and of hours are closely interwoven?

Mr. FOOT: The facts brought to my notice by the hon. Gentleman are constantly before us, and we are well aware of the association of the two questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINING, CORNWALL.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines if, in view of the extent of the depression and the unemployment in the tin mining industry of Cornwall, he will take steps to introduce at an early date a Measure designed to give assistance to the industry?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: In September of last year my predecessor in office invited the Metalliferous Mines Advisory Committee of the Mines Department to inquire generally into the possibilities of developing or of reviving the working of metalliferous and associated deposits in Great Britain. This inquiry, of course, included in its scope tin mining, and a special investigation of the position in Cornwall was recently held at Camborne by representatives of the advisory committee, in consultation with representatives of the tin mining industry. I understand that the advisory committee's report is now practically ready and is likely to reach me by the end of this month. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member may repeat his question at a later date.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WOMEN (TRAINING CENTRES).

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that young women who are sent to training centres are called upon to put in a further waiting period if 10 weeks elapse while they are at the training centre; and will he take steps to have this restriction removed?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Until recently the position was as stated by the hon. Member. The umpire has, however, decided
this month that a fresh waiting period need not be served by women who have completed courses at centres conducted by the Central Committee on Women's Training. Steps are being taken to give effect to this decision.

TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT (REGULATIONS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will supply Members with the Regulations issued under both the Anomalies Act and the Unemployment Act, 1920, dealing with transitional benefit and any instruction dealing with the means test?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Copies of all Regulations may be obtained by hon. Members in the usual way from the Stationery Office. For the greater convenience of Members, however, I am arranging to have placed in the Vote Office a supply of the Anomalies Regulations and of the No. 2 Order in Council and the Regulations thereunder. A set of the instructions with regard to the needs test has been placed in the Library.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance of these new regulations, about which we know nothing at all, cannot they be issued to Members?

Sir H. BETTERTON: My answer stated clearly that they can be obtained from the Stationery Office, but I will consider the point mentioned.

Mr. THORNE: Have any circulars already been sent out to the chairmen of public assistance committees—circulars of which Members of this House have no knowledge? Are there not 20 questions that have to be put to the individual who applies for transitional benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have said that copies of all regulations can be obtained at the Stationery Office.

Mr. THORNE: If I send the Minister a copy that I have myself seen, will he say whether it was issued by his Department?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Certainly.

Mr. LAWSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that he would place the instructions with regard to the needs test in the Library?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would it be possible for each Member of Parliament to get a copy of this questionnaire which is being submitted to the applicants in the courts?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not quite clear as to what the hon. Member is referring to, but, if he will put down a question to me, I will deal with it.

Mr. McENTEE: Is there any uniformity in the questionnaires that are being submitted in different parts of the country; and, if not, is there to be any uniformity in this respect?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a question which has already been raised in Debate. The question of uniformity and of the actions and procedure of public assistance committees is not really a question for me.

SEASONAL AND PART-TIME WORKERS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour if unemployed miners and building trade and shipbuilding trade workers are in any way affected by the regulations arising out of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, dealing with seasonal workers or persons who habitually work for less than a full week?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Generally speaking the answer is in the negative, but I cannot yet say what special cases may be brought to light by the application of the regulations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the trades or occupations, respectively, of the classes of persons who habitually work for less than a full week; seasonal workers; persons whose normal employment is not more than two days in the week; and where cases have been reviewed under the regulation arising from the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As regards the first three parts of this question, there is no comprehensive information available, but the hon. Member will find on page 38 and the following pages of the First Report of the Royal Commission an indication of the persons they had in mind. With regard to the last part of the question the available statistics do not distinguish between the trades and occupations of the persons concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).

Major NATHAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to take steps for the preparation of a cost-of-living index appropriate to the conditions of the present time in substitution for the pre-War cost-of-living index now in use?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This question has been examined on several occasions in recent years and the decision has been uniformly against altering the existing series of index numbers. I do not at present contemplate any departure from this policy but I propose to keep the matter under observation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (MANCHESTER LIVERPOOL ROAD).

Mr. TINKER: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to state what progress has been made with the Manchester and Liverpool road; what parts, if any, are completed and in use; when is it expected the whole will be completed and in use; and will it be finished in the time scheduled in the contract?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The contractors have made good progress and are in advance of the scheduled programme. Two miles of the road within the city of Liverpool have been completed and opened to traffic for some time past. The Lancashire County Council contemplate the opening of other sections of the road early next year, and if the present rate of progress is maintained the whole route should be completed by the end of next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. McEWEN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the present state of the fishing industry, how soon the report of the committee of the Economic Advisory Council which was set up in June may be expected?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that there have been unforeseen delays with this report owing to recent political conditions, but the committee hope at their next meeting to settle finally the terms of their report.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the appalling condition of fishermen in the West Country and now that the political delay is over will he realise that he has a House of Commons which will be behind him in taking any steps to protect British fishermen?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly certain that the committee is surveying the whole situation.

Mr. McEWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the next session of the committee is likely to take place?

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY.

Mr. MANDER: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking the initiative in summoning a conference of countries not on the gold standard to consider a joint policy on currency matters?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the ColChester Division (Mr. Lewis) on Thursday last.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the calling of an international conference with a view to the stabilisation of the price of silver?

Mr. DAVID WILLIAMS: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of convening a conference of representatives of Britain, China, India, and Japan with a view to the establishment of a silver standard for currency in this Far East?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. For the reasons given in reply to previous Parliamentary Questions on this subject, His Majesty's Government do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by calling an international conference on silver.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government contemplates an early return to the Gold Standard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are a number of important conditions some of which are not subject to our control, which must be satisfied before stabilisation of sterling in terms of gold could be contemplated. Our immediate objective is to balance the Budget, to rectify the adverse trade balance, and to maintain the internal purchasing power of the pound.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that to link our currency with gold, without previously settling inter-Allied debts and reparations would be to obstruct the Government's declared policy of a stable currency?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had in mind conditions of that kind when I spoke of conditions which are not subject to our control.

Mr. MACLEAN: As the object is to balance the Budget are we to take it that the Budget has not yet been balanced?

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take measures to secure that the mass of Victorian silver currency now being gradually withdrawn from circulation will not be melted and re-alloyed with base metal but recoined at its former standard, no practical profit being obtainable from its recoinage with base alloy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

BEER DUTY.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the output of beer of a large brewery in the South of England has decreased by 22½ per cent. for the month of October, 1931, compared with October, 1930, and that with the increased duty-charge of 31s. per barrel there was a net decrease in Beer Duty paid for October, 1931, by this brewery of nearly £700 compared with October, 1930; and whether, in view of this loss of estimated new revenue, he will obtain a report from all breweries with a view to ascertaining the deficit in the revenue estimated from Beer Duty for the month of October, 1931, compared with October, 1930?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The receipts from the Beer Duty, as from the other branches of revenue, are kept under constant observation, in the light of the question whether the yield estimated for in the Budget is likely to be realised. It is at present too soon to determine that question.

Viscountess AST0R: Would it be the policy of any Government to increase beer drinking because of the revenue which it brings in?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer for "any Government."

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not better to encourage beer drinking than bootlegging?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of barrels of beer brewed and the duty realised since the increased Beer Duty was imposed in comparison with the quantity of beer brewed and the duty realised over a similar period last year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which the Financial Secretary gave on the 12th November to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton).

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great injury caused to the hop industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the matters which will have to be taken into consideration.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the light hon. Gentleman bear in mind the brewers' profits last year?

LAND VALUES TAX.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether staff is still being engaged or paid in connection with the machinery of collection needed under the land tax proposals in the Finance Act of 1931?

Mr. LAMBERT: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of new officials appointed in connection with the new land tax valuations; and what is the policy of the Government with respect to these land taxes?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost up to date of the preparations for putting into execution the land tax proposals of the Finance (No. 1) Act, 1931?

Mr. ALBERY: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the intention of the Government to repeal the land tax Clauses of the Finance Act, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of temporary staff engaged in connection with the valuation under Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, is 700. For the rest I can at present add nothing to the answers given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday.

Mr. LAMBERT: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to Question 58, may I ask him what is the policy of the Government in regard to these land taxes, or when will he be in a position to state what is the policy of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I answered my right hon. Friend's question by referring him to the answer given yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which was to the effect that no statement about policy could be made at this moment.

Mr. LAMBERT: Then may I ask when the Government will be in a position to make a statement of policy on this question, and will they leave it to the House of Commons to decide?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A statement certainly will have to be made and made as soon as possible.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will it be made before the House adjourns?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not like to give a definite reply to that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the urgent need for more land for allotments in this country and the facilities which would be given in that respect by having a valuation of the land first?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question is not relevant to the questions on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop this waste of money?

Mr. LAWSON: Will the Lord Privy Seal be consulted before any decision is taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously, this will have to be a decision by the Cabinet.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members in this House regard themselves as being pledged in this matter?

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.

Mr. HALLCAINE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can supply figures showing the amount of assets of the Post Office Savings Bank on loan to the Unemployment Insurance Fund on each quarter-day during the past five years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amounts of the assets of "The Post Office Savings Banks Fund" advanced to the Exchequer under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and outstanding on each quarter-day during the past five years were as follow:




£


31st December, 1926
…
14,332,431


31st March, 1927
…
15,572,431


30th June, 1927
…
15,342,431


30th September, 1927
…
15,052,431


31st December, 1927
…
15,744,431


31st March, 192S
…
16,850,431


30th June, 1928
…
17,904,431


30th September, 1923
…
19,174,431


31st December, 1928
…
23,424,431


31st March, 1929
…
27,234,431


30th June, 1929
…
27,763,000


30th September, 1929
…
27,828,000


31st December, 1929
…
29,188,000


31st March, 193)
…
29,968,000


30th June, 1930
…
32,818,000


30th September. 1930
…
37,988,000


31st December, 1930
…
43,268,000


31st March, 1931
…
53,098,000


30th June, 1931
…
60,428,000


30th September, 1931
…
72,008,000

Mr. MACLEAN: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the borrowing from the Post Office Savings Bank deposits required Cabinet approval, or whether it was operated without Cabinet sanction as a part of Treasury adminis-
tration; whether, if Cabinet sanction had to be obtained, such approval had to be obtained each year or whether, once obtained, the policy was continued without further application for sanction; and when Cabinet sanction was first asked for and obtained?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Within the limits laid down by Statute the investment of the monies deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank is at the discretion of the National Debt Commissioners and Cabinet approval is not required. The rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury first adopted the policy of borrowing from Post Office Savings Bank deposits; the amounts borrowed in 1925 and each succeeding year to and including 1931; and whether such borrowings are and have been shown in published Government accounts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it. in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since Cabinet approval is not required for carrying out this policy, can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the country was led to believe that the late Cabinet had that under consideration and carried out that policy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Following is the answer:

The practice of raising from the Post Office Savings Bank Fund sums which the Treasury is authorised by Act to borrow dates back at least to 1888. These borrowings are usually repayable by short period annuities or at the end of a short term of years. Thus at the same time as new loans are being raised earlier loans are being repaid. The following table shows the actual amount borrowed in 1925 and succeeding years and the net advances after allowing for repayment of earlier loans. It includes a few items which are not borrowed by the Treasury but are advanced under special Acts, such as the Pensions Commutation Act, 1869.

Year.
Amount borrowed.
Capital Repayments.
Net increase in advances.



£
£
£


1925
13,902,000
5,998,000
7,904,000


1926
23,240,000
4,626,000
18,614,000


1927
13,636,000
6,176,000
7,460,000


1928
19,031,000
5,378,000
13,653,000


1929
17,814,000
6,297,000
11,517,000


1930
27,904,000
7,476,000
20,428,000


1931 (to 10th Nov.)
36,219,000
4,093,000
32,126,000

The amounts outstanding at the end of each calendar year are shown in the annual Post Office Savings Banks Account which is presented to Parliament under Statute.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total sum standing to the credit of investors in the Post Office Savings Bank at the last convenient date; what use is ordinarily made of that sum by way of investing it for the purpose of earning interest; the amount so received in interest during the last financial year; the amount paid in interest to depositors; the cost of administration; and the amount of the nett gain, if any?

Major ELLIOT: The amount standing to the credit of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank on the 31st October was £292,000,000, including accrued interest. The funds remitted to the National Debt Commissioners are invested by them in securities issued under Statute for the interest on which provision is made by Parliament or in securities guaranteed by the British Government. As regards the remaining parts of the question, the hon. Member will find details for the year to 31st December, 1930, in the paper "Savings Banks and Friendly Societies" (63.9999 of 1931).

Mr. DAVIES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the Cabinet at any time decide the destination of any of these investments?

Major ELLIOT: That has been answered in reply to previous questions.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer it again?

SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.

Mr. LEWIS: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the present Government propose to take with regard to those Safeguarding Duties which were allowed to lapse by the last Government?

Mr. ALBERY: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his intention to reimpose those Safeguarding Duties which have recently been removed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These matters come within the scope of the general inquiry which the Government are undertaking.

Mr. LEWIS: Having regard to the careful inquiry made in each case before the duties were put on, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that he will announce a decision to the House before we rise for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I cannot give any such undertaking. I think that obviously these particular duties cannot be considered apart from the general question.

Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Safeguarding Duties not only have relation to the balance of trade but also to employment?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: And will he bear in mind the pledges given at the last Election?

—
1928–29.
1929–30.
1930–31.
Total.



£
£
£
£


Supreme Court Buildings (Sect. 34 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920).
30,520
50,450
56,550
137,520


Parliament and public departments (Sect. 24)
153,500
191,200
223,400
568,100


Contributions under Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Acts, 1926 and 1929.
483,059
328,198
521,484
1,332,741


Total
667,079
569,848
801,434
2,038,361

TRAVELLING FACILITIES.

Mr. TURTON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need for national economy, he will recommend the limitation of the provision of free railway vouchers for Members of the House and civil servants to third-class travel, and confine the granting of

NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES (for Mr. HEALY): 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the Imperial contribution paid by Northern Ireland in the past three financial years, as well as the total grants paid by him into the Northern Ireland Exchequer in the same period in respect of the new Parliament, the courts, and the equalisation of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

1. The Imperial contributions paid by Northern Ireland in the last three completed financia. years were as follows:






£


1928–29
…
…
…
1,175,000


1929–30
…
…
…
855,000


1930–31
…
…
…
507,000*






£2,537,000


* The contribution for 1930-31 was provisional and is subject to adjustment by the Joint Exchequer Board in the light of actual figures of revenue and expenditure for that year.

2. During the same years the following grants were paid to Northern Ireland:

first-class travel facilities to cases where the Member or civil servant himself pays the difference between the first- and third-class fare?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of travelling facilities has often been raised in the House, and has been carefully considered in recent months. The decision
arrived at was to retain the general system subject to certain modifications designed to eliminate extravagance. Since that decision there has been the cut in salaries. I therefore do not think it necessary to reopen the matter, but I would remind hon. Members that vouchers are available for third as well as first-class travel as they may choose on each occasion.

Mr. TURTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that out of the 258 Members who voted for the retention of first-class fares 193 lost their scats at the General Election?

Mr. THORNE: How many Members have third-class vouchers instead of first?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.: It is open to all Members to have them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE AND INDUSTRY (EVIDENCE).

Major NATHAN: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the position as regards publication of the evidence given before the Macmillan Committee on finance and industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Fairfield Division (Mr. Brocklebank).

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS PROSECUTION (WITHDRAWAL).

Mr. BATEY: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Commissioners of Customs and Excise withdrew the summonses down for hearing at the Mansion House, on 6th November, 1931, against four ladies charged on 38 counts of defrauding the customs; and what reparations, if any, were made by them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Section 35 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, specifically enables the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to stay proceedings at their discretion, a power which is exercised in suitable cases. In the case referred to this power was used on consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the claims of the Commissioners having been fully satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WINTER RESORTS.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 71.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what assistance has been given by his Department to popularising British winter resorts as against foreign winter resorts, in view of the need for keeping British funds at home?

Major COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It is not the function of the Department of Overseas Trade to assist in popularising in this country United Kingdom winter resorts, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, have powers themselves to raise funds for this purpose. The Department of Overseas Trade, however, co-operates with the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland in advertising abroad our resorts with the object of bringing more visitors from overseas to this country.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would not the first thing to be done to popularise all our resorts be to abolish the last traces of "D.O.R.A."?

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Have the Travel Association taken any steps yet to grade the hotels in this country which are now seeking to popularise winter resorts here?

Major COLVILLE: That is a question of which I should require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (INQUIRIES, KASHMIR).

Sir C. OMAN: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the official despatched by the Government of India to Kashmir to investigate the condition of that State has any authority to intervene in cases of maladministration or only to report to the Government at Delhi?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend's question contains a misapprehension which has already appeared in the Press and which my right hon. Friend welcomes the opportunity to remove. The services of the official referred to, Mr. B. J. Clancy, have been lent to the Kashmir Darbar by the Government of India at the Darbar's own request. He has been appointed by the Darbar to preside over
a commission which will inquire into the grievances of the Moslem subjects of the State, and will submit its report together with its recommendations to His Highness the Maharaja, not to the Government of India. The commission consists of four members, nominated by the Moslem and non-Moslem communities of Srinagar and Jammu. Their names are being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. His Highness has also obtained the loan of the services of Mr. L. Middleton, I.C.S., and has appointed him to inquire into the causes of the disturbances of last September and the measures taken for the suppression thereof.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this report will not be made public, or will it be published, so that we can have a copy of it here?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I should like to have notice of that question.

Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that, as stated in the "Times" newspaper, the whole of this trouble in Kashmir is due to the replacement of British officials by Indians?

Following are the names:

The names of the members are Ghulam Ahmad Ashai, Premnath Bazaz, Chaudhri Ghulam Abbas and Pundit Lokhnath Sharma.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of recommending to Parliament proposals which would ensure permanent control and direction of the Post Office apart from changes of Government.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): This matter has not as yet been under consideration by the Government.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the position of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) with regard to the Post Office system, and does he not intend to take the matter into consideration?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I have observed the statements of my Noble Friend, but, of course, the matter raises a very large question, and my hon. Friend realises that, if his suggestion were adopted, there would no longer be a Postmaster-General to reply to questions in this House.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Would that not sometimes be an advantage?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (BREWING INDUSTRY).

Mr. McENTEE: 74.
asked the Minister of Health by what amount the rates of brewers have been reduced in the last available year under the Local Government Act; and what proportion this reduction bears to the profits of those concerned?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (SALARIES).

Mr. McENTEE: 75.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities that have adopted the Government's recommendation to economise by reducing the salaries of officials?

Sir H. YOUNG: Returns have not been obtained by the Government, and I am, therefore, not able to furnish the desired figures, but information which has been received indicates that salaries have been reduced by a large number of local authorities.

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask what number is in the mind of the Minister when he says "a very large number"?

Sir H. YOUNG: By "a very large number" perhaps I should explain that I mean a substantial proportion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SUB-LETTING).

Sir W. DAVISON: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the introduction of legislation prohibiting a tenant who has the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts from subletting premises so protected or parts of
the same at a total rental in excess of what the protected tenant himself pays to the landlord?

Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 12th instant to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle).

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend not recognise the great resentment that is felt by so many people, who find that they are receiving a less rental from a house than the person who is occupying it and making a profit at their expense?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think the strength of the feeling to which my hon. Friend refers is quite fully recognised, and it shall be taken into consideration in the deliberations to which I have referred.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that not indicate to the Minister how necessary it is to go ahead with house building; and that the people would not have to pay these excessive rents if there were houses for them to go into?

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (DEPORTATIONS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what place certain persons concerned in the recent troubles in Cyprus have been deported; whether the deportations are to be permanent; and how many of the deportees are natives of Cyprus?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Seven of the persons deported are on ships bound for the United Kingdom. Three, including the Bishops of Kitium and Kyrenia, have landed and are at present in Gibraltar. The Governor of Cyprus informs me that the deportation orders stated that the persons in question were to leave the Colony and remain outside thereafter. Except the Bishop of Kyrenia, all the persons concerned are British Cypriot subjects.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible for the Government to enter into arrangements with the Italian Government to deport them to the Island of Rhodes?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am concerned with seeing that they keep out of the Island of Cyprus.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (INDICATORS).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 78.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability, for the information of new Members, the Press, and the public, of having installed at each end of the Chamber of the House an apparatus for displaying the name of the Member for the time being addressing the House?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am inclined to the opinion that, on consideration, the suggestion made by my hon. Friend would not commend itself to the majority of Members of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there is at present any assisted scheme for migration to the Dominions of British subjects; and which Dominions will accept British migrants and the conditions under which they will be admitted to the Dominion?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In view of existing economic conditions, migration to the Dominions is not being encouraged at the present time, and the assisted passage schemes for migrants from this country are in abeyance apart from exceptional cases involving the reunion of families. Migrants from this country who pay their own way are admitted to all the Dominions if they can comply with the Immigration Regulations, that is, provided that they are of good health and character and are not likely to become a public charge.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to consult with other Dominions?

Mr. THOMAS: It may certainly be a matter for discussion, but the chief point at the moment is that it would be unfair to assist or encourage migrants when one knows the conditions oversea, and I am certainly not doing that.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to assist distressed British immigrants in the Dominions to get back among their friends?

Mr. THOMAS: I have always explained, in answer to several questions, that that is not a matter for which the British Government are responsible. In answer to previous questions to-day and on other occasions, I have indicated that we are doing all we can to assist British immigrants who are in distress in various parts of our Dominions.

Mr. MAXTON: Why is it not a matter for the British Government, who send men out there, to consider what we should do with these men?

Mr. THOMAS: It had better be clearly and definitely stated that the British Government do not, and to my knowledge never have, sent men out. They go on their own initiative, and it is our duty to acquaint them with the facts and circumstances. It is not true to say that we send men out.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman attempting to tell us that it was not the policy of the last two Governments to stimulate and to assist migration to the Dominions?

Mr. THOMAS: To stimulate by giving the facts and to assist by reduced passages—yes; but the final and last word is with the migrants themselves. The best answer is that there was no occasion, in either the 1924 Labour Parliament or in the 1929 Labour Parliament, when my hon. Friend was Under-Secretary, when there were not thousands more anxious to go than could possibly be sent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Minister admits that they did assist migrants, and it is their duty to assist them to get back.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: We really cannot have a Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (LOAN).

Captain CAZALET: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to statements which have appeared in the Press of South Africa to the effect that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have indicated to the French Government that they would view with disfavour the raising by
a British Dominion of a loan in a foreign country for the purpose of maintaining the gold standard in that Dominion, and that, as a result of such action by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, His Majesty's Government in the Union are likely to find themselves unable to raise a loan in France; and whether there is any truth in this statement?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the statement in question, and I am glad to have this opportunity of making it clear that it is entirely without foundation. Any such attitude on the part of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as that attributed to them would be wholly contrary to their policy, and is unthinkable.

Mr. RHYS: Is it not true to say that the Dominions as a whole derive great benefit from the fact that Great Britain accords trustee status to their loans in this country?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly there can be no minimising both the value and the importance of the trustee status from which our Dominions benefit.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House if South Africa intends to remain on or to go off the gold standard?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the Prime Minister make a statement in reference to Business? Will he also tell us what Business he desires to get through to-day, and whether the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill will be in the Vote Office to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill cannot be in the Vote Office until we get the Resolution. It will be in the Vote Office to-morrow morning. With regard to the question as to Business, I must apologise to the House for having had to change the Business, but I think that the House will recognise the position.
To-morrow, Wednesday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill, and on Thursday the remaining stages of the Bill.
On Friday, the Business will be the Second Beading of the Statute of Westminster Bill.
If there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.
As regards the Business to-day, perhaps I might give a full answer. The Eleven o'clock Rule is being suspended to-day in order to obtain, first of all, the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the procedure in connection with the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill; that is the second Motion on the Paper with the title of "Business of the House." Secondly, it is being suspended to obtain the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolution which is necessary in order that the Bill may be introduced. If the procedure Motion is passed by the House, the Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution, which is exempted Business, will be taken immediately after the Committee stage, and a Bill ordered in, printed, and made available to Members to-morrow morning. If there is time before Eleven o'clock, we shall take the Second Reading of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Mr. HANNON: Can the Prime Minister possibly simplify the title of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill? It is a most appalling title, and surely my right hon. Friend can do something to put it in a simple form.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will do anything I can to assist my hon. Friend to make the christening of the Bill a little more amenable to our tongues, but hon. Members can use whatever name they like.

Mr. THORNE: Surely it is not necessary to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule with the majority that the Government have.

The PRIME MINISTER: I should always do it in those circumstances.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that we are to get the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill to-morrow morning and proceed to discuss it at 3.45?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely this is extraordinary procedure. I cannot recollect any instance of an important Measure such as this, which alters the whole fiscal basis of the country, being presented to the House in circumstances which do not allow us even one night for the consideration of its provisions and an appreciation of the full effects of it. I cannot think that either the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council, if they were sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, would agree for one moment to such procedure. It is not treating the House with the respect with which we expect to be treated.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Irish Free State passed a Bill of this kind through all its stages in one day? Further, will he consider calling the Bill the Importations (Amendment) Act, which would be a simpler title?

The PRIME MINISTER: I fully sympathise with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said, but he will realise that, in present circumstances, if this legislation is to have any effect at all, it must come into operation without delay. I hope the House will accept that explanation. The Government are fully aware of the exceptional nature of what is being asked of the House, and it will be recorded as a very exceptional procedure, and not to be treated as a precedent unless similar circumstances arise.

Mr. MAXTON: I agree at once as to the urgency of the case. I should not be the least bit averse to the Measure being passed speedily once we had had the opportunity of seeing it. I would not object if all the stages were taken in one day; but surely Members have a right to have a Bill for a clear 24 hours beforehand, in order that there may be opportunity to consider it and define our attitude towards it. The official Opposition may be very much quicker in the uptake than I am, but I should not feel myself competent to address myself to this Measure after having had only an hour or two in which to consider it.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask whether the Bill could not be made available immediately after the Financial Resolution has been passed to-night?

An HON. MEMBER: Is it not a fact that we have been considering this Bill for a quarter of a century?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that already thousands of workers have been deprived of their employment and that if there is delay thousands more will suffer in the same way, and is it not the feeling of the House that we ought to get the Bill through at once?

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has greater confidence in the President of the Board than I have.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)"—[the Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 411; Noes, 46.

Division No. 3.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Flanagan, W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Christie, James Archibald
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
 Clarke, Frank
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover;
 Clarry, Reginald George
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gledhill, Gilbert


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glossop, C. W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colman, N. C. D.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Colville, Major David John
Glyn, Major Raiph G. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Conant, R. J. E.
Goff, Sir Park


Balniel, Lord
Cook, Thomas A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooke, James D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Copeland, Ida
Granville, Edgar


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Graves, Marjorie


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cranborne, Viscount
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gilmston, R. V.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Crooke, J. Smedley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Bernays, Robert
Crookshank, Col. C. de windt (Bootle)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bird Sir Robert B. (Welverh'pton W.)
Cross, R. H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Crossley, A. C.
Hales, Harold K.


Blinded, James
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Borodale, Viscount.
Curry, A. C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Boulton, W. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hanbury, Cecil


Boyce, H. Leslie
Denville, Alfred
Hanley, Dennis A.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dickie, John P.
Harbord, Arthur


Brass, Captain Sir William
Donner, P. W.
Harris, Percy A.


Briant, Frank
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hartington, Marquess of


Briscoe, Richard George
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hartland, George A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duggan, Hubert John
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Brown, Brig. Gen. H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Dunglass, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Buchan, John
Eady, George H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eales, John Frederick
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Burghley, Lord
Eastwood, John Francis
Hepworth, Joseph


Burnett, John George
Eden, Robert Anthony
Herbert, George (Rotherham)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Edge, Sir William
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Holdsworth. Herbert


Caine, G. R. Hall
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hopkinson, Austin


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Elmley, Viscount
Hornby, Frank


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Horobin, Ian M.


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Carver, Major William H.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Cassels, James Dale
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Castle Stewart. Earl
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Hurd, Percy A.
Molson, A. Harold Elsdale
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen.Sir R.(Montr'se)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Scone, Lord


Hutchison,William D.(Essex, Romf'd)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Selley, Harry R.


Inskip, Sir Thomas w. H,
Moreing, Adrian C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Iveagh, Countess of
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbign)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Munro, Patrick
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dinc, C.)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ker, J. Campbell
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Smithers, Waldron


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
North, Captain Edward T.
Soper, Richard


Knight, Holford
Nunn, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Knox, Sir Alfred
O'Connor, Terence James
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lambert. Rt. Hon. George
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
palmer, Francis Noel
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F.C. (Westmorland)


Leckie, J. A.
Peake, Captain filbert
Stevenson, James


Leech, Dr. J. w.
Pearson, William G.
Stones, James


Lees-Jones, John
Peat, Charles U.
Storey, Samuel


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Penny, Sir George
Stourton, John J.


Levy, Thomas
Percy, Lord Eustace
Strauss, Edward A.


Lewis, Oswald
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Pethetick, M.
Stuart-Crichton, Lord C.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Summersby, Charles H.



Pickering, Ernest H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Lockwood, John c. (Hackney, C.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Templeton, William P.


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Potter, John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R,
Purbrick, R.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Pybus, Percy John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mabane, William
Raikes, Hector victor Alpin
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Train, John


McCurquodale, M. S.
Ramsbotham, Herswald
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsden, E.
Turton, Robert Hugh


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rankin, Robert
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


McEwen, J. H. F.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


McKeag, William
Rea, Walter Russell
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McKie, John Hamilton
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McLean, Major Alan
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Maclean, HI. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Remer, John R.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Weymouth, Viscount


Magnay, Thomas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
White, Henry Graham


Maitland, Adam
Robinson, John Roland
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Making, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Manninnham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Marjoribanks, Edward
Runge, Norah Cecil
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wise, Alfred R.


Martin, Thomas B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, Sir John James


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.)
Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tslde)
Womersley, Walter James


Millar, James Duncan
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mills, Sir Frederick
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Milne, Charles
Salmon, Major Isidore
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Salt, Edward W.



Mitchell, Harold p.(Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Shakespeare.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cocks. Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees. (Glamorgan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, William G.
Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebb-.v Vale)
Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brown, C. W. E, (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies. David L. (Pontypridd)
Hicks, Ernest George


Buchanan, George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, George Henry


Cape, Thomas
Edwards, Charles
Jenkins, Sir William




John, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Kirkwood, David
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Leonard, William
Price, Gabriel



Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lunn, William
Thorne, William James
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.


McEntee, Valentine L.
Tinker, John Joseph
Duncan Graham.


McGovern, John
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
That the Resolution to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between consideration in Committee and on Report of such a Resolution, and that more than one stage of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may be proceeded with at any Sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance.
4.0 p.m.
In moving this Motion, which stands in the name of the Prime Minister, I shall do so at no great length as there is really not very much to say about it. The House will be aware that the President of the Board of Trade announced yesterday, in the course of the Debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, that he was going to introduce a Bill to deal with abnormal importations, and that he hoped to proceed with it with all speed, and so to arrange that it should become law this week. That was the undertaking which he gave to the House, and it is to implement that undertaking that I am moving the Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
I understand that the Opposition are going to move an Amendment. I thought that they would have accepted this Motion without discussion, because all through the Debate on the Address they kept asking the Government, "What are you going to do?" and "Why do you not do something, and do it quickly?" We were so impressed with what they said, that we arranged for the Bill at once, and now we are going to get it through quickly. Doubtless we shall hear by and by what their objection to it is, but I think that I can answer the objection which was made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is fixing me with his eye at the moment. Let us grant, for the sake of argument—and certainly it is the fact—that, in the view of the vast majority of the House, the speedy passage of this Bill is desirable on every ground. If that be so, we have to remember that if there were no Resolution, six parliamentary days at least would be consumed in the passage of this short Bill, because, as is known to
all Members of this House, Resolutions in Ways and Means must be proceeded with stage by stage on different days, and Bills based on Resolutions arising out of Committee of Ways and Means, in the same way, can only proceed one stage on each separate day. It is obvious that if this Bill is to become law at the end of this week, it must leave this House on Thursday, and that gives three days instead of six for the passage of the Bill.
The Government gave serious consideration—and this, I believe, is where the point of the hon. Member below the Gangway comes in—as to how they should divide the time, and they decided that the fairest method would be to get rid of the Financial Resolution to-day, in one day, leaving two days for the Bill. That means that to-morrow can be taken up with the Second Reading. I have seen since Question Time that a few copies of the Bill shall be in the Vote Office to-night at 11 o'clock if the Resolution be passed at 11 o'clock, but for the Debate on the Second Reading there is ample, time, if the Bill is circulated to-morrow, for anyone to make his speech on Second Reading, because everyone knows what the principle of the Bill is, as it was explained clearly and fully by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday.
The important point from the Opposition point of view, is that we have arranged for the Second Reading and the subsequent stages of the Bill on the next pay. That will give ample time for hon. Members to study the Bill, and, if they think fit to put down Amendments for discussion on Thursday. I have explained what the procedure would have been had there been no motion. I observe that, in the view of the vast majority of this House, speed is of the essence of the contract, but there are some people who are not of that view, and they will doubtless make their voices heard. In these circumstances, I will not anticipate the Amendment which the Opposition are going to move. I do not think that I need say anything further as to the necessity for this motion, and I will leave it to the President of the Board of Trade to make that point clear to the House if that be necessary, after the Amendment has been moved.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move in line 1, to leave out from the word
"That." to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House is of opinion that no case has been submitted for setting aside its long-established practice relating to financial business, which was designed and has proved to be necessary in the interests of the taxpayer and of the rights and privileges of this House.
I think it will be admitted by every hon. Member who has had any experience in this House that the procedure brought forward in the Motion which the Lord President of the Council has just moved is really a revolution in our constitutional procedure. It will be very difficult for anyone to find a precedent for the proposals which are being put forward to-day. If we were living in a state of war such a Motion might be necessary. If we were dealing with a real emergency which could not be overcome except by great speed, I think everyone here would agree that we should hold up the usual procedure.
It is the right of every citizen to know, when new taxation is proposed, the reason why that course is being taken. The House should be made fully aware of the nature of the taxes which, are going to be proposed. All these matters should be fully considered by every Member of the House. There ought to be no question that when taxes are imposed the rights of this House, and of the people outside, ought to be fully safeguarded in every possible way. That is one function of this House which has been upheld again and again against every kind of opposition. There has never been in the history of Great Britain any subject about which the House of Commons has been more jealous than the imposition of taxes. No one can claim that we shall not be imposing fresh taxation through the action of the Board of Trade, if the proposals which we are now considering go through. For these reasons, we on these benches are against the whole of this procedure, and we believe that the House of Commons, if it passes this Motion, will be abdicating for the first time in its experience during a long period of years, its chief function, and will be handing over the right of imposing taxation to a public Department.
It is not my intention now to attempt to discuss the whole of the questions involved in the Motion. I am not sure that
I should be in order in trying to do so, but I would, in passing, like to say that this is not merely a question of dealing with dumping. I notice in the Press and in the speeches of hon. Members of this House it appears to be thought that what is now proposed is a great effort to stop the importation into this country of what are called dumped goods. What, in effect, you will do by the adoption of this Motion will be to give to the Board of Trade the power to say what sort of articles shall be permanently taxed at the port of entry. About that there cannot be any possible doubt, because the President of the Board of Trade himself said yesterday that he was not going to discuss dumping, and he stated that the legislation which he proposed to introduce was forestalling legislation. If you are going to forestall something, you must be going to do something.
The point I am making is that, in handing over to the Board of Trade this power, you are saying to that Department: "Choose what articles are to be excluded or heavily taxed, and we will safeguard your action by passing this legislation." The House of Commons has no right to give to any Government Department the power to say what particular articles shall or shall not be taxed at the port of entry. That is something which has never been done at any time in the history of this country. Whenever I have listened to the Lord President of the Council speaking upon Safeguarding, he has always said that you must have an inquiry in the first instance in order to be quite sure of the effects of everything connected with any proposition put before Parliament.
To-day we are not being asked to do anything of the kind, and we are simply being requested to give the Board of Trade a blank cheque to start a series of tariffs. I contend that that is such a revolutionary proposal that even a Tory House of Commons ought not to consider it. I should have thought that there would have been some other hon. Members of this House ready to stand up in defence of the ancient rights of this Assembly and declare that there ought not to be any taxation without the previous consent of the House of Commons. The idea that three months after the imposition of the taxation this
House may suspend such proposals, is only playing the fool. This House has always been entrusted with the right of imposing taxation, but we are being asked to-day to give up that right, and to hand it over to the President of the Board of Trade and his Department.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for your guidance. I want to ask whether this Motion, which has been moved, does not contain really two Motions and should be divided into two parts. The Standing Orders of this House have laid down certain procedure in connection with finance. The question I ask is whether the proper procedure to be followed should be that there ought to be a Motion moved that the Standing Orders be set aside or altered, instead of moving a Motion claiming the procedure which is now proposed. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have any power-to safeguard this House from an alteration of the Standing Orders being made in this fashion, instead of by a Motion altering the Standing Orders, in order to enable the Government to proceed with a Measure of this kind. The point I wish to put is that there is no need for any Standing Orders at all, because a Government with a large majority can set aside the Standing Orders at any time. I submit that the Motion we are discussing is challengable on the ground that the alteration of a Standing Order can only be made by a Motion altering that Standing Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) puts to me two separate points. The first point is as to whether this Motion should not be divided into two. It certainly might have been divided into two, but I have already put it as one. An Amendment has been moved to the whole Motion, and that has also been put to the House. If the hon. Member had drawn my attention to the point sooner, I would, with the consent of the House, have put the Motion in two portions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The practice in the past has been to wait until the vote was being taken, and then to raise an objection. As a rule, the objection is not made until the actual Question is being put to the House. I want to know whether you
intend to put this Motion as a whole. or whether it is not really two Motions on which hon. Members have a right to vote. I want to know whether in future that practice is to be altered. My second point is that the Government have come along with a Motion claiming this procedure without first passing a Motion setting aside the Standing Orders of the House dealing with taxes.

Mr. SPEAKER: If my memory serves me, the past practice has been that, when there has been any such Motion on the Paper, I have had notice that it was going to be suggested that the Motion should be put in separate parts. I think the hon. Member has put his question too late,, whatever may have been the practice in the past. The hon. Member asks me whether it is in the interests of the House that I should exercise some authority in safeguarding the rights of the House as regards the suspension of the Standing Orders. As a matter of fact, this particular Motion does not interfere with any Standing Order. It does propose to alter what has become the regular practice of the House, but no Standing Order is interfered with in any way. I might call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that it is very frequently the action of the House to suspend a Standing Order. As regards myself, I do my best to preserve the rights and privileges of this House. The question of suspending the Standing Order rests with the House, and it is for the House to do it, or not, as it thinks fit, and it does not rest with me.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I only want, in a very few words, to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment to withdraw it, if only for the benefit of his own party. I do not know if he likes the thought of the Labour party acquiring the description of the champion of the tax escapers. I remember that in 1929 and 1930 we were engaged, as supporters of the Government, in devising methods by which people should not be able to escape taxation—[Interruption.] I am not referring to Land Tax, but to Income Tax, or, rather Super-tax. Now, however, as their first act in this Session, the Labour party propose an Amendment that can only have the effect of enabling persons to escape the payment of taxes. That is the sole effect of their
Amendment. If that is the description that they like to acquire for themselves, I can only say that I am very sorry. Clearly, the intention of this procedure is to prevent people from importing, without paying tax, that which the Bouse desires should pay tax—

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me when the House has decided that any one of these particular articles should be taxed? When was that desire expressed?

Mr. DENMAN: This is a procedure devised to prevent these goods from coming in without paying tax, on the assumption that the House will ultimately—[Interruption.] It is on that assumption. Object to the assumption if you like, but do not object to the procedure which is necessary in order to make these goods pay tax, or, rather, to prevent goods from being imported without paying the tax that we all want them to pay. The right hon. Gentleman observed that this was to be permanent taxation, but, of course, these Resolutions have nothing to do with permanent taxation. They are very carefully confined to a limited period, and, if the taxes are not made permanent, then the whole of this procedure drops. [Interruption.] That is the Resolution, and the Bill must follow the Resolution; you cannot escape that. I repeat that the only effect of this Amendment would be to enable people to escape paying taxes, surd that is not an Amendment that I can support.

Mr. HANNON: The Leader of the Opposition is particularly anxious to vindicate the rights and privileges of this House. I say that the duty of this House, as soon as possible after it has assembled, is to give effect to the feeling of the people of the country which has been expressed in the mandate given to Parliament, and, if ever any expression of the opinion of the people following upon a General Election has been cogent and definite, it is the recent expression of opinion that we should deal at the earliest possible moment with this question of the destruction of our home market by foreign competition. An essential element of this procedure is to give effect to the will of the country in the earliest possible period of time, and all the talk of the Leader of the
Opposition about being so anxious to preserve the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country is as nothing compared with the interest of the people outside that this Measure shall be given legislative force at the earliest possible point of time. Therefore, I hope that all this humbug that has been talked on the Opposition side of the House will be dropped, if only for shame's sake. They have gone through a General Election in which they have been wiped off the slate. All their shouting about democracy and the rights of democracy means nothing to them; it is a question of obstruction in the way of the will of the people being given effect to by the House of Commons.

Mr. MAXTON: I support the Amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and I cannot say that I have been discouraged in that view by the somewhat heated speech of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who seems to feel that there is something rather fishy about this business.

Mr. HANNON: Very.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member is anxious that the legislation involved should go through the House without being subjected to the ordinary process of examination which he and his colleagues have always insisted on giving to every Measure that has come before this House in the past. I am very interested in the touching faith that the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues have developed in the President of the Board of Trade. If I were a Conservative sitting on that side of the House, and if I were asked to support a Measure introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, I should want about a month in which to examine it in detail, just to see the precise way in which the right hon. Gentleman was going to "Do us in." This faith and confidence in the President of the Board of Trade is not, I hope, going to be disappointed and destroyed, but, if ever there was a case for the House of Commons insisting on its rights in this matter, this is the case in point. A week ago the Government had no intention of introducing this Measure. It is true that they got a general mandate
from the electors to do something in the matter of the restriction of imports or the regulation of the import trade. Undoubtedly there was a mandate of that description. But a week ago the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues had not interpreted what that mandate meant, and each of the responsible spokesmen of the Government spoke in terms of postponing a decision until the matter had been fully examined and inquired into and investigated slowly and carefully. There was to be no rush; the legislation was to be absolutely holeproof; it was going to be done very carefully.
I agree that that should be so, because I am quite satisfied that the reason why this country has not departed from its Free Trade basis in the last 25 years during which the matter has been one of political controversy, and during which several Governments have been in office who had the power and mandate to alter the fiscal basis of the country, has not been for lack of a mandate, has not been for lack of public opinion against the foreigner's trade in this country, but has always been because of the tremendous practical difficulties. Let it be remembered that, if these Measures are put into operation in any whole-hearted way, they are going to ruin a whole lot of business men who voted for the National Government. The President of the Board of Trade knows that; a certain number of Conservative Members know it; the particular person concerned does not know it yet, but he will know it in the course of a week or two, and then the reactions and repercussions will start. If this country has determined that now is the time when it is going to depart from its Free Trade basis, now is the time when the matter should be thought out, so that the application of this new trade method should bring about the minimum of disturbance, for you must remember that your general trade is not in such a state just now that you can deliberately adopt measures that are going to kill certain industries and businesses in this country, and are only going to have a very problematical effect in restoring others.
A week ago that was the Government's intention. The strongest Government of Parliamentary history met a week ago
to take time to think this matter out carefully. Then came the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), whose rushing tactics I know from experience—from his attempt to deny to a certain part of the Opposition even one seat in this Chamber. He brought up his cohorts at all hours of the morning in attempts to rush myself and my three or four colleagues out of their appropriate and proper place in the House, and he is also rushing up his cohorts against the Prime Minister and this strong Government. He blows the bugle, they march round the Jericho, and the walls fall. The House met to take time to think this matter out, but the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, that great hive of industry and commerce, says, "My boarding-house landladies will not wait until the Government have thought it out." Again, from Eastbourne—another great industrial centre—there are deputations, there are interviews, there are promises, there are statements in the House, and there is legislation: and the party sitting behind the Government, who last week agreed that there should be time to think this legislation out and make full inquiry, walks in to-day and says, "Go ahead, Government; do whatever you like; we are prepared to support this bit of legislation for Protection, produced primarily by that great protagonist of Free Trade, the President of the Board of Trade; and our confidence in you is so strong that we are prepared to give it to you before we have seen it." That is the most shocking bit of slipshod public work that ever was done.
You went before the electors only a few weeks ago and said, "We are the people who are going to run the affairs of the country prudently and carefully. We are going to have none of the wild, extravagant Socialist schemes of the late Government"—what a travesty of the facts!—"we are going to have prudence and care in the administration of the nations resources, and the legislation that we are going to introduce is going to be examined carefully by responsible men." Here are the responsible men who have arrived in the House now telling the country that, for the purpose of a bit of legislation which was not contemplated a week ago, which has been rushed on the Government by a few extremists, which was not even mentioned
in the King's Speech, and which we have not seen, they are prepared to suspend all the established practices of the British House of Commons that have existed from the time of Cromwell and Hampden. Where is the hon. Gentleman who always tells us about Cromwell and Hampden, and our glorious liberties that our ancestors won? And the principal apologist for this was, a month ago, a Labour Member. Now Liberals, Tories and Labour Members say, "Never mind the House of Commons; we have got to stop the dumpers; we have got to stop dumping"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is the measure of great enthusiasm and no intelligence. I, for one, will give my most hearty support to this Resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—or, rather, Amendment—[Interruption.] I made a slip of the tongue; thank Heaven I have not made a slip of the brain. I regard this as an unwarranted interference with the established practices of the House, in the interests of a proposal which has no urgency about it, and which may lead to the most terrible consequences to the trade and industry of this country.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: The hon. Member seems to think that the President of the Board of Trade, directly he gets his Resolution passed, is going to put on an enormous number of taxes and without thinking about it at all prevent all sorts of things from coming in. That is not what we are asking for. What we are asking for in the Resolution is to give power to the right hon. Gentleman to do this when the time arises. We want the power because in certain cases there are abnormal importations at present. It means that he will have the power to prevent certain things coming in which are upsetting our balance of trade. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) said the only effect of this was that it was going to prevent people from escaping taxes. I do not agree with him. I think the effect of it will be to prevent us from getting to a position where our balance of trade gets so bad that the value of the pound may decrease very considerably. That is even more important than the point that the hon. Member made. But that is not the only effect it is going to have. The Leader of the Opposition seems to be in the same position now as he was before the Election. He seems
to think there is no crisis, but the electors have realised that there is a crisis. He says we are asking for a blank cheque. That is exactly what the Prime Minister asked for at the General Election and got by an overwhelming majority. I hope we shall get the same blank cheque with an overwhelming majority in the House.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) complains of rushed legislation. My point of view is that it is not the legislation that is being rushed but imports that are being rushed, and that is the real need for this legislation at such short notice before we rise for the Christmas Recess. It is needed in view of the stream which has come in recently, a stream which could not have been known of 10 days or a fortnight ago. The figures given by the President of the Board of Trade referred to the imports of the first 10 days of November, when they had not reached our shores. It is not, therefore, quite fair to complain of it as rushed legislation and say the Government ought to have brought it into the King's Speech, when the imports had not in many cases left the Continental ports when the King's Speech was prepared. The hon. Member made a facetious allusion to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He spoke of that town as a hive of industry. I should say those happy resorts are the hive of those who have been successful in industry. This very afternoon I have been at a Chamber of Commerce gathering in my constituency when I was given for 4d. a knife made in Germany. The gentleman who imported it said it could very well stand an import duty of 100 per cent. and even then it would only cost 8d. That is the point of view of those who retail these commodities which come over at very low rates of exchange. They think we can quite well add 50 or 100 per cent. to the price, and it would still be low. It would obviously be extremely foolish on our part to allow the House to adjourn for some weeks, foreign countries knowing that tariffs will be put on in January or February, without giving the President of the Board of Trade power, if he thinks it right, to put on anything up to 100 per cent. in the way of duties, and I welcome the proposal.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of our late colleagues have told us they have been converted within a month from the doctrines they used to preach to a new conception of national policy. We on this side have never pretended either to be Free Traders or Protectionists. We are democrats in politics and Socialists in economics and, because we are democrats, we accept the decision of the people as given at the ballot box, but the people were never told during the election by any party that, in the event of the other side of the House getting a majority, they were going to introduce legislation of this character. There is not a single Member who can say that he got on a public platform and proposed to give to any individual Minister the light to supersede the rights of the House of Commons. There is no Minister on that Front Bench who ever made such a declaration during the whole course of the election. You are not legislating for the immediate present. You are laying down a precedent for the future. The whirligig of time brings its revenges. You are in a big majority. We may be in a big majority to-morrow. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] When you wake up. Will you agree to the idea that, if we get power, we can say to one of our Ministers, "You will have power to levy any kind of taxation that you like?" Would you allow power to do exactly what you like administratively without the House of Commons having a chance to discuss the rights and wrongs of the situation? We are asked in advance to give one Minister of the Crown the right to supersede Parliament itself. That is a revolutionary proposition.

Mr. DENMAN: There is nothing in the Resolution that gives any Minister any such, power whatsoever.

Mr. JONES: Being an Irishman, perhaps I am rather dense, but, if I understand the English language at all, it means that the right hon. Gentleman gets the right to select from a whole series of articles contained within the schedules of the Board of Trade and to levy a tax up to 100 per cent. Some people may be lawyers. Thank God I am not. This quibbling about the meaning of the words in the Resolution leaves me absolutely cold, but I can see the ordinary common
sense of it. What is the intention of bringing it forward if it is not to do what hon. Members want done, and to do it at once? They cannot wait. Everyone who represents a dockside constituency knows that what is happening now always happens at this period of the year. Goods are coming in to a greater extent than at ordinary times. Yet this period has been picked out as an example of what is generally going on. I am not in favour of dumping. I am against it. I should like to prohibit the introduction of goods produced under unfair conditions in other countries.
I am not going to vote for this Motion. I will not give any one man the power to become a dictator in the economic work of the country. I would not vote for it if I never gave another vote. It is giving power to one man who is not the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would not ask for it. He is not here. We do not know where he is, though we know where he was. He is a lost leader. Some of us are not orthodox Free Traders. We do not believe in the doctrine of competition, external or internal, but Parliament ought to preserve its rights, and we who are sent here ought to have control over the national finances, because that is what we are getting to the bottom of. Power to impose taxation has always been the prerogative of this House. That power is being taken away and handed over to one man who is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Captain STRICKLAND: May I ask the hon. Member to which part of the Resolution he refers that places power in the hands of one Minister of the Crown?

Mr. JONES: I am referring to the whole principle of the Resolution. It gives to the Department presided over by the President of the Board of Trade the right to select articles to be taxed and, if it does not give the right of taxation, I do not know what it means. It means not only taxing the article but taxing the people who buy it, because the consumer will have to pay the tax. We all know that. If the Resolution does not confer upon the Minister the right to impose taxation, what is the enthusiasm amongst the supporters of the Government about? It is their object to tax the foreigner and to make the foreigner pay. Was not that the story? Our trade should not be interfered with by unfair competition.
There might be agreement about that, but here you are saying for the first time in the financial history of the country that you are going to give an individual Minister the right to select articles to be taxed, and at the finish the working class will be the main sufferers. Therefore, we are opposing the Resolution from the constitutional and also from the economic standpoint.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HARRIS: I think we are travelling rather wide of the Resolution. It is merely a question of procedure. The question is merely whether the practice of Parliament of allowing an interval between the Committee and Report stages of a Resolution should be adhered to. This practice has grown up as the result of years of experience in the endeavour to protect the taxpayer and to give him a reasonable chance of making his views heard and felt through his representatives in the House of Commons. A case, of course, has been made out for a departure from this long accustomed practice. We understand that the matter is urgent and that actions are being taken by interested parties and delay may be disastrous. Speed is essential. If the Resolution is passed and if we embark, as a result, on a policy of full-blooded tariffs in one form or another, it will be necessary for this procedure to be continued not only in the present emergency but when we come to consider the Budget of the year. We know that the policy of forestalling goes on even in this country under a revenue tariff. Forestalling always goes on on a large scale where tariffs are part of the revenue system of the country, but I say as a Tory in this matter, as a constitutionalist, that Members should view with scrutiny, and even with suspicion, the speeding-up of our financial Measures. There is no greater custodian of the practices of the House than the President of the Board of Trade. It came as a surprise to me to find him introducing and recommending this revolutionary provision, but I would say to him as an old friend that such a form of procedure is inevitable if you embark upon a tariff policy. As soon as the world knows that these new duties will be imposed, these practices will be continued. I remember after the McKenna Duties were taken off, and, when it was understood that they were to be reimposed, the River Thames was black with barges containing motor cars
with the object of forestalling the reimposition of these duties. I am afraid I am a conservative in this matter. I follow the old procedure of the Mother of Parliaments, which has been followed in nearly every Parliament in the world. It is followed in our Dominions, and, I understand, it is even being followed in America. There should be proper intervals for consideration between the formulation of proposals to alter the system of taxation and their imposition by Parliament. Traders, business men and manufacturers will be subject to the danger of new taxation within a week, with no power of protest, no power of petition, no power of objection and no opportunity to come into contact with Members of Parliament. This is a dangerous practice, and as a good conservative, a believer in our constitutional practices and a student of the Constitution of this country, I shall feel bound to vote against the proposed innovation.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: It fills me with astonishment to hoar speeches made by hon. and right hon. Members of the Labour party in which they appear to desire to do everything that possibly can to prolong the time when this country will be flooded with imports of foreign manufactured goods. Every day that is wasted in stopping excessive importations is prolonging very considerably the time during which a great number of our people will be kept out of work, instead of finding employment. It is a very common mistake of the party opposite to suppose that what the unemployed want is assistance when they are out of work, and I think that their time might be better occupied in doing everything possible to secure employment for those people at their own jobs. Here is their opportunity. One would think that if they were really anxious to give the unemployed an opportunity of working at their own jobs, they would do everything they possibly could to-day to facilitate the passing of this Measure and stop the importation of foreign goods at the earliest possible moment. There is one point which I want them to bear in mind. There are other reasons which make delay dangerous. In critical times you require exceptional methods. There is the extreme importance of balancing our trade and of obtaining the balance of our
Budget, but scarcely less important is the desirability of providing work for our unemployed. I must stress the point, that every day's delay in stopping excessive imports coming into this country means the continuation of the time during which many of our own people will be out of work. I hope that hon. Members opposite will give the matter their full consideration.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The Leader of the Opposition just now said that for once he was in favour of the taxpayer. For a long time I have heard him speak in favour of putting more burdens upon the taxpayer. I have never heard him say anything in favour of the taxpayer until to-day. It was not until I thought the matter over and wondered what was in his mind that I discovered the reason for this new-found sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman for the taxpayer. It was because of the fact that the taxpayers would be foreigners and not British subjects. That was the real reason of his sympathy for the taxpayers.
I should like to see duties put on at the earliest possible moment. Nothing would have induced me to object if the proceedings of the last four days had been cut down to one day. The emergency Measure could then have been brought on three or four days ago. Apart from that, there is one point with regard to the procedure in this matter which, I think, some Conservative Member ought to lay down very clearly in the House of Commons. I have been in the House for a considerable time, and although I do not pretend to be an expert on the Procedure of the House, it is absolutely essential in the interests of the private Members of the House that there should be the fullest possible discussion before any taxes are levied.
The Motion, as framed to-day, is one for which I intend to vote, but I shall do so with great reluctance. I will point out the reason. If we are going to have the Committee and the Report stages of the imposition of the duties on the same day, it will be impossible for those who represent various interests in the country to get into touch with those outside interests. That is a point which ought to be remembered. As was said earlier in the day, hon. Members are in this
House primarily to protect the taxpayers of the country. I do not often find myself in agreement with Members of the Opposition. Even on this occasion, I am not in full agreement, because they are only in favour of the foreign taxpayer. I am in favour of hitting the foreigner whenever I get a chance. I know that hon. Members sitting below me have not yet quite recovered, so I will not rub it in any more.
I and a great many members of my party were pledged to support the Government from the national point of view. Although as Conservative Members we have a better method of dealing with this matter than through the issue of orders by the Board of Trade, the main object is to get things done, and that is why I shall support the Motion. That it should be done in rather an autocratic way and in a way which most Conservatives would not necessarily like is obvious. When you have also Liberal and Socialist Members of a Government they are far more autocratic than we Conservatives could be, and we have to accept their autocratic rule on certain occasions. This is an occasion upon which I am making a personal sacrifice of my own feelings in order to get something done. There is a consideration which is far more important on this occasion, namely, that every day the evil is getting worse, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller), whom many of us are glad to see back again, has indicated, with unemployment so menacing, we cannot always stop over the niceties of Parliamentary procedure. For that reason, I think we can support the Motion to-day. But I should like to lay it down very clearly —and I believe that a very large number of the Members of the House of Commons, particularly the older Members, feel as I do—that this procedure should not be used as a precedent in any way. It is being done because there is an emergency. In the interests of the average private Member I make this protest, and suggest that we accept the Motion because of the need of the country, and because expedition is absolutely essential in the national welfare.

Mr. McENTEE: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) rather interests me. He tells us that he and a num-
ber of his party do not desire a Motion of this kind to be pushed through, and that the Liberal Members of the Cabinet and the Liberal party in the House generally compelled him and his friends to do things which they did not want to do. I understood that the Conservative parly had such a large majority in the House that even if all the Simonite-Liberals, the Samuelite-Liberals and all the ex-Labour men, and all the real Labour men were on the Opposition side, the Conservatives would still be in a majority and able to carry out their will in the House. It is no use fooling about this matter. It is the will of the Conservative party, the Liberal party and those ex-Labour men who are supporting the present Government that this thing should go through quickly. Every tyrant in history has always excused his actions on the ground that they were necessary at the time, and so it is with the tyrants in this case. They are in a majority. They are in a position to impose their will. They intend to impose their will, but they know that in imposing their will they are doing something which is not right, and they are compelled to make excuses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Nearly every speaker who has spoken from the other side has made excuses. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay that it is the foreigner who is going to pay these taxes. Is it? If it be so, it is something of which I have always been ignorant.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point which had better be made on the Financial Resolution, and not upon this Motion.

Mr. McENTEE: Of course, I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that you allowed a remark by the hon. Member for Torquay to which I was going to make reply. However, if you say that I am not to be permitted to make a reply, of course, I accept your ruling. The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), who has now left the House, produced a pocket-knife, and I may be permitted to make some remarks about the statement he made?

Mr. SPEAKER: As long as the hon. Member's remarks are concerned with whether we shall pass the Motion before the House or accept the Amendment, his
arguments will be in order. It can only be a matter referring to this particular Motion.

Mr. McENTEE: Of course, I accept your Ruling, but I thought that when a remark was made by an hon. Member with regard to the foreigner paying taxes I should be allowed to make some remarks on the same subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to the question of taxation. The Motion has nothing to do with the foreigner paying taxes, but deals with the question of putting the business through as quickly as possible.

Mr. McENTEE: I accept your Ruling. May I put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade? After all, the passing of this Motion is the prelude of something, and before any Member is asked to cast his vote either for or against it, he is entitled to ask what is coming after. I put it to you that, not having the Bill in front of us, we can only ask questions and seek information. There is no Bill in front of us, and no information that is definite. Our votes will undoubtedly be influenced by the discussion which takes place here. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion gave us no information whatever in regard to the Resolution except with reference to the point as to why six days, the normal time given to a Resolution of this character, are now being reduced to three. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether any inquiry is to be made in regard to the goods that are coming into the country, and which he will find it necessary to stop coming in by means of a tariff. Is any inquiry to be made as to the conditions under which these goods are manufactured in the country of origin?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Resolution before the House. The question is whether the Committee and the Report stage of these Money Resolutions should take place on the same day, and two days taken for the remaining stages of the Bill.

Mr. McENTEE: I was led into a mistake, perhaps, by following speakers who had referred to those things and whom you did not pull up. Therefore, I
thought that I might follow them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I think I can conduct my own case.

Mr. SPEAKER: It must be left with me to decide what is in order.

Mr. McENTEE: I was about to say that I accept your Ruling and that I reserve my arguments until a later opportunity. I want to add my protest to the protests already made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) and other hon. Members on this side of the House, including the hon. Member for Torquay who, although a Conservative, appears to have some suspicion whether or not he is doing the right thing. I doubt if there is one hon. Member who can say definitely that he or she is doing the right thing in supporting a revolutionary Measure of this kind, and taking away the privileges of the House of Commons and of its individual Members. I must express my surprise that many Members of this House who during the last Parliament were always taking opportunity to defend the privilege of the House, are now, because it suits their own purposes and the purposes of their party, to sink all the opinions that they expressed so frequently and well in past Parliaments, and to give to the National Government certain privileges at the expense of the rights of the ordinary Member of this House and of Parliament itself.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I desire in a few sentences to meet the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Since the right hon. Gentleman spoke the discussion has taken a very wide scope. It began by the picturesque irrelevancies of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and a number of hon. Members have been led into matters which are not strictly within the scope of the Resolution before us.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have tried to keep hon. Members to the point. I think the hon. and learned Member might leave it to me.

Mr. KNIGHT: With very great respect, Sir, you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that it was that circumstance, the undue enlargement of the discussion, which caused you to call
certain hon. Members to order. I want to avoid the difficulties into which some of the preceding speakers were drawn. In a few sentences I desire to address the House, within the Rules of Order, in my own way. I wish to meet the legitimate complaint made by the Leader of the Opposition in moving the Amendment. He complains that the procedure contemplated is a serious departure from the ordinary procedure of this House. That is so. There is not one hon. Member who can deny that, but what the right hon. Gentleman overlooks is that this procedure is directed to an emergency and that it is so framed as to curtail its operations to that emergency. The emergency to which the Resolution and the Amendment are directed is the emergency on which the will of the country was taken.
Some complaint is made that this procedure is unauthorised by the will of the country. I am most anxious to keep within the narrow ambit of the Motion before the House, and I desire merely to say that observations have been made in regard to Free Trade and Tariff Reform which, in my submission, with all due respect, are not directly raised by the Motion or the Amendment. I am entirely unconcerned by those matters. I found my own attitude on the commission which I received from my electors, a commission which I understand was received by scores and hundreds of Members of this House in common with myself. That commission was this. In view of the financial situation facing the country, an economic situation of an unparalleled character, and it being necessary to redress a very serious adverse balance of trade, and it being possible to do that either by contracting imports or stimulating exports, it became necessary to seek the will of the country as to whether the Government should be authorised to adopt some special procedure to deal with that situation. On the commission received from the country this procedure has been devised.
No one would challenge the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in these matters. He has been forced, as he confessed to the House yesterday, to adopt this procedure. That procedure some of us outlined during the election, and it is no surprise to us to see it produced. It was the obvious procedure to
be adopted. The procedure is emergency procedure. It is restricted to six months. The orders made must be reviewed by this House for 28 days. I do not profess to be an authority on the procedure of this House, but supposing the Board of Trade, under this Resolution, issued an order which was not acceptable to the House, surely it would be possible under the rules of the House for a review of that order to be undertaken. Therefore, I submit, with very great respect that, unparalleled as this departure is, it is a departure which is necessitated by the special circumstances of the time, a departure which is restricted in its operation, a departure which can be reviewed under the ordinary rules of the House and, finally, a departure which it was the will of the country should be undertaken.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The substance of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member is that we are in a state of emergency. I wonder why we had a General Election, if we are to act in accordance with emergency. Prior to the Dissolution there was a majority for the Government of from 50 to 80 upon every issue that came before the House, even on teachers' cuts and on the question of unemployment. The National Government at that time had a sufficient majority to have done precisely what they liked. I presume that the imports that are to be taxed under this Resolution, when the Bill has gone through Parliament, were then coming into the country. Are we to assume that the emergency has arisen during the last few days and that it therefore becomes essential for the usual six days time to be reduced to three days to meet something which could have been done before if the emergency existed during the last five or six weeks? This House is to permit a precedent to be created that will enable the President of the Board of Trade to obtain authority to do whatever he likes during the next six months. It is true that at the end of six months certain orders have to be placed upon the Table. One can well understand the enthusiasm of the supporters of the National Government,

even with the apologies that come from Liberals and even from the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). They are endeavouring to apologise for their conduct.

Once this Resolution has gone through and the Bill comes in and Parliamentary time has been curtailed from the normal six days to three days, a precedent will have been created, and the President of the Board of Trade will have authority to tax anything that he may deem it advisable to tax in the interests of the country. That is the precedent that is being created. As the Opposition we vehemently protest against that, and that, the rights of private Members, regardless of their political predilections, should be taken from them in this way. I am amazed that people who presume to have Radical thoughts should permit this thing to go through. The late National Government had a sufficient majority to do all that they desired, yet they threw the country into a General Election, at enormous expense, in order to have greater numbers returned to impose upon the country that which is to be done by way of a precedent, imposed in the Bill that is to follow this Resolution. On behalf of my party and in accord with the Leader of the Opposition, I protest most vehemently, and I claim that in the Division we ought to have support of all Radical thought.

5.30 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there really an emergency at all? [Laughter.] I gather from that demonstration that the House thinks there is an emergency. In that case, why was not this Measure mentioned in the King's Speech? The Government apparently regarded this Measure as of so little immediate importance that they did not put it in the King's Speech. Then the emergency arises. The emergency is not the salvation of our trade, but the placating of the Conservative part of the Government.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 396; Noes, 51.

Division No. 4.]
AYES.
[5.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Albery, Irving James
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Horobin, Ian M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Denville, Alfred
Horsbrugh, Florence


Atholl, (Duchess Sutton)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Atkinson, Cyril
Dickie, John P.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Balniel, Lord
Duggan, Hubert John
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bateman, A. L.
Eady, George H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Eales, John Frederick
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Eastwood, John Francis
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir JR.(Montr'se)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hutchison, William D.(Essex, Romf'd)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Edge, Sir William
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bernays, Robert
Ednam, Viscount
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Elmley, Viscount
Janner, Barnett


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Blindell, James
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Borodale, Viscount.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bossom, A. C.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Boulton, W. W.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, s.)
Ker, J. Campbell


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Flanagan, W. H.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Bracken, Brendan
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Knight, Holford


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Briant, Frank
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Briscoe, Richard George
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Broadbent, Colonel John
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Law, Sir Alfred


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gillett, Sir George M.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Buchan, John
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lees-Jones, John


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Burghley, Lord
Glossop, C. W. H.
Levy, Thomas


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Burnett, John George
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Goff, Sir Park
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
Lockwood, Capt J. H. (Shipley)


Caine, G. R. Hall
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Graves, Marjorie
Lymington, Viscount


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Greene, William P. C.
Mabane, William


Carver, Major William H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Casseil, James Dale
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain D. W,
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Cayzer, Ma|. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Hales, Harold K.
McEwen, J. H. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
McKeag, William


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
McKie, John Hamilton


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
McLean, Major Alan


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)


Christie, James Archibald
Hanbury, Cecil
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Clarke, Frank
Hanley, Dennis A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Harbord, Arthur
Magnay, Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Colman, N. C. D.
Hartland, George A.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Colville, Major David John
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Conant, R. J. E.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Cooke, James D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Copeland, Ida
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford;
Martin, Thomas B.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur F.
Millar, James Duncan


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hepworth, Joseph
Mills, Sir Frederick


Crooke, J. Smedley
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Milne, Charles


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Cross, R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Crossley, A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Molson, A. Harold Eisdale


Curry, A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Davison, Sir William Henry

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)




Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stuart-Crichton, Lord C.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Robinson, John Roland
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Munro, Patrick
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Summersby, Charles H.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Templeton, William P.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Rothschild, James L. de
Thom, Lieut.-Colonel John Glbb


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


North, Captain Edward T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Nunn, William
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomas. Major J. B. (King's Norton)


O'Connor, Terence James
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Thompson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Palmer, Francis Noel
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Patrick, Colin M.
Salmon, Major Isidore
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Salt, Edward W.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Pearson, William G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Percy, Lord Eustace
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Train, John


Perkins. Walter R. D.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Petherick, M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Scone, Lord
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsoy)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Selley, Harry R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Pike, Cecil F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Potter, John
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


Power, Sir John Cecil
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Weymouth, Viscount


Purbrick, R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
White, Henry Graham


Pybus, Percy John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Raikes, Hector Victor Alpin
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smithers, Waldron
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ramsbotham, Herswald
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wise, Alfred R.


Ramsden. E.
Soper, Richard
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Rankin, Robert
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Womersley, Walter James


Ratcllffe, Arthur
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Rathbone, Eleanor
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wood, Major M McKenzie (Banff)


Rea, Walter Russell
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stevenson, James



Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stones, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Remer, John R.
Storey, Samuel
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Stourton, John J.



Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Roes (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy. Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Resolution to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the
interval between consideration in Committee and on Report of such a Resolution, and that more than one stage of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may be proceeded with at any Sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Order for Committee read.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before going into Committee, I desire to put a point of Order with respect to the Resolution in Ways and Means standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties). I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the undoubted right of this House alone to impose a tax and to fix the amount of a tax. According to Sir Erskine May in his "Parliamentary Practice":
The imposition of a number of duties of a similar kind, or the renewal of a number of existing taxes, by means of a single resolution has been held to be in order.…It has been held, however, that a number of new duties relating to different commodities should not be imposed in a single resolution.
The Resolution which the President of the Board of Trade is proposing to move gives power to impose duties on various articles, different duties on different articles—plate and sheet glass, knives, surgical instruments, vacuum cleaners, etc. Does not this statement of Erskine May in fact rule out the right of the Government or of the House to consider this question in the form in which it is to be put to the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I make no complaint that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to this question and put this point of Order, but I would point out to him that notice that he intended to raise the matter reached me only at Question Time this afternoon. I should have been glad to have had a little more notice that the question was to be raised, for the House will readily see that it raises a somewhat technical point that calls for consideration before an opinion is given upon it. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he assumes that the procedure which it is proposed to adopt here is not in accordance with the usual custom of this House. While it does not actually infringe any Standing Order, it is contrary to the practice and custom of the House for many years, as more or less laid down by Erskine May. Of
course, if the procedure had infringed any of the Standing Orders I should have drawn the attention of the House to that circumstance, but the House must remember that, while I am the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, I am also its servant, and, in the House chooses to depart from what is the common practice, it is not for me to order what the House should do, but for the House to order me what to do. It is always best for the House itself to decide what action it should take in any particular circumstances. I have nothing to do except to carry out the will of the House.
But while this is an exceptional circumstance the procedure is not without precedent. Before the procedure was decided upon I was asked for my advice, and I had the opportunity of looking up the precedents for this particular action. A Ruling was very carefully laid down by one of my predecessors on 2nd December, 1919, when the question before the House was the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill. That was a very similar Bill to the one which it is proposed to introduce after this Money Resolution is disposed of. My predecessor on that occasion dealt with most, if not all, of the questions which have been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He laid stress on the fact that the particular Bill which was to be introduced was justified in the exceptional circumstances of the day; and as regards delegation of the right of this House alone to impose taxation my predecessor said:
I am not prepared to say that the House cannot delegate that power to some other body."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1919; col. 213, Vol. 122.]
As regards the question of this House delegating the power of imposing charges, or the imposition of duties, my predecessor made a remark which I think is as applicable to this Bill as it was to the Bill which was then under discussion. My predecessor said:
The main purpose of the Bill is to exclude dumped goods and goods competing with key industries, and the imposition of charges in the nature of import duties is incidental to the adoption of such a policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1919; col. 213, Vol. 122.]
This Bill is not concerned principally with the imposition of duties. The main pur-
pose of the Bill is to exclude dumped goods and the nature of the proposed duties is only incidental thereto. I think that that disposes of most of the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the latter part of his question, that taxes on a variety of commodities could not be proposed in one Resolution, I would remind him that that has been done in the Safeguarding Duties. There the power to impose taxes is granted in one Resolution. Therefore, the procedure that we are adopting to-day is certainly not without precedent in this House, although it is exceptional and contrary to the usual practice.

Mr. LANSBURY: With the permission of the House may I say that I am extremely sorry that we were not able to give you, Mr. Speaker, more time to consider these points, but all of us have been extremely rushed over this business, and neither yourself nor we can accept any responsibility for that. With regard to the point about the Safeguarding Duties, I would mention that they were continuing duties, but the precedent set up here is that a number of new duties are to be sanctioned in one Resolution, and that that is definitely laid down as something which is not only unusual, but something that the House has never done before. With regard to the question of emergency, the President of the Board of Trade himself—I have carefully looked up his speech and I do not think he will deny my statement—said that this was not a question of dumping, but of forestalling something. Our gravest objection to this procedure is that under it a series of taxes will be levied on the people of this country in order to lead up to some other permanent levying of taxes without this House having had an opportunity of discussing them.
I repeat that we cannot forestall something if that something is not in our mind to forestall. It must be in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade that his Department is going to prepare a schedule of goods that shall be taxed, and in order that we shall not be flooded with these goods he is taking these precautions. I quite admit, Mr. Speaker, that you do interpret the will of the House, but very respectfully I also say that you are the guardian of the liberties and privileges of the House, and espe-
cially of the minority. We do say very emphatically that in our judgment this precedent is not on all fours with any that you have quoted, and that it cannot at all be taken as being in relation to the decision that Mr. Speaker Lowther gave in 1919. I would point out that it is the same Speaker's decision in regard to the first part of my case just now, that is, the inclusion in one Resolution of a number of articles to be taxed. We are now protesting most emphatically against this House being robbed of its historic right to discuss taxes before they are levied. We think that it is a most revolutionary proposal and one for which there is no justification whatever.

Mr. SPEAKER: As I have said, I make no complaint about the right hon. Gentleman not having given me more notice, but I did say that I feared my Ruling might not be as ample as otherwise it would have been. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should think that I am not duly fulfilling my duty as guardian of the privileges of this House, and not safeguarding the minority. I have to carry out the Rules of the House and must in other respects act in accordance with the will of the House, which must be interpreted by the decision of the majority for the time being. At the same time, I have always done my best to safeguard all minorities.

Mr. LANSBURY: If I said anything that in the slightest way would leave the impression that any of us here would complain of your conduct in any way, let me say that that was not in my mind at all. We are always very grateful to you.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thank the right hon. Member.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Motion made, and Question proposed
That—

(i) there shall be charged on any articles imported into the United Kingdom, being articles to which this Resolution applies, in addition to any other duties of Customs, such duties of Customs as are hereinafter provided;
723
(ii) the articles to which this Resolution shall apply shall be articles of any class or description comprised in Class III of the Import and Export List issued under the authority of the Treasury and the Commissioners of Custom and Excise for the year 1931, to which the Board of Trade, being satisfied that those articles are being imported into the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities, have by Order applied any Act of the present Session for giving effect to this Resolution;
(iii) the Customs duties to be charged as aforesaid in respect of any articles shall be such duties as may be specified in an Order made by the Board of Trade under the said Act not exceeding one hundred per cent. of the value of the articles:
(iv) the Act aforesaid shall continue in force for a period of six months from the passing thereof and no longer;
(v) any Order made by the Board of Trade as aforesaid shall cease to have effect at the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a Resolution of this House:

Provided that in reckoning any such period as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which this House is adjourned for more than four days;
(vi) the Act aforesaid may include such incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary or expedient in relation to WHS matters aforesaid."—[Mr. Runciman.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runcirman): I am bound to admit at the outset that the procedure which we are here following is exceptional. Throughout the discussion yesterday the Government made it quite clear that they must adopt exceptional procedure if they were to attain the end that they had in view. The circumstances are exceptional, and the fact that they are exceptional means that we could not have afforded the time to have passed through all the stages, in the normal way, the proposed imposition of taxation. Had we adopted the normal procedure it would have taken up at least a fortnight of Parliamentary time. The use of Parliamentary time does not matter very much; what does matter is that another fortnight should pass without our being able to deal with the flow of imports that we have seen during the last five or six weeks. I gave some figures yesterday which showed that, even allowing for all the seasonal variations, there was an
enormous increase of imports in the month of October, and a still more remarkable increase in the early part of November. In the first eight months of 1031 the average monthly importations of Class III goods were at the level of £20,600,000. In September the value of those imports had risen to £22,600,000, in October to £27,200,000, and in the 10 day period ended on 10th November they were at the rate of £35,000,000 a month.
6.0 p.m.
That points very clearly to the fact that the acceleration was continuous and showed no signs of abating, and all the other indications we have had of the run of goods during the last 10 days show that there is forestalling, show that those who are bringing goods into the country or importing goods into the country are clearly looking ahead to circumstances which they anticipate. Within the policy of the Government these facts necessitate exceptional measures during the next few months. In those circumstances, we were bound to take the steps described yesterday. I know that it is a very large demand to make on Parliament. The powers indicated in the Bill—which will be circulated to-morrow and which will be available, I hope, in the Vote Office to-night — will be handed over to the Board of Trade, but what is handed over to the Board of Trade is not a power to impose taxes. It is a power to initiate the procedure by which taxes will be imposed. It is a power of initiation which the Government are asking the House to place in the hands of the Board of Trade and, when the Board of Trade has taken the initiatory steps, the sanction of Parliment must be obtained within 28 days. An Order can come up with 28 days for discussion in this House if the House is sitting, or within 28 days after its reassembly if it is in Recess, and the House can if it likes revoke the Order, or at all events refuse to sanction the Order. If the House does not care to revoke the Order, we may take it then that that is the will of Parliament, and it is so that we shall interpret it. The method by which Parliament can operate is well known in our practice. There is nothing exceptional in that. The ordinary means can be taken for opposition to any Order which may have been made, and if that opposition is not effective in the House,
then the proposal is that the duties thus imposed should carry the full force of Parliamentary sanction.
I made some reference yesterday to the size of the duty. That must be left, I am afraid, for the consideration of each case as it may arise. We have taken, or propose to take, a very wide range of powers, and within that range of powers we hope we shall do something to deter forestalling and to prevent attempts being made by those who have no particular sympathy with our Parliamentary system, or our fiscal system, to take full advantage of the conditions in which we are at the present time, and which will, at the same time, be a deterrent to those who pay no consideration whatever to the state of our foreign exchanges except in so far as these concern their own trade. We must take a larger view. We have to keep in mind the fact that we have to preserve and maintain the value of the sovereign externally as far as it is within the power of Parliament to do so. We must, at the same time, on the other side do what is in our power to prevent the depreciation of the internal value of the sovereign.
It is for those considerations which I explained at great length yesterday, and need not repeat to-day, that I beg to move the Ways and Means Resolution which appears on the Paper. It covers all the points which will be embodied in the Bill. In the Bill itself Members will find that full provision is made for the imposition of these duties, for the securing of Parliamentary sanction for changes of Customs duties on the articles to which I have made reference, and for ascertaining values for the purposes of the Act. The only further point to which I need draw attention is that the usual provision will be inserted for the determination of disputes which may arise between the authorities and the taxpayers, and that, finally, the articles to which this shall refer, shall be the articles named in Class III of the Imports and Exports list.
Some Members of the Committee may not be well acquainted with the Imports and Exports list. I may explain that it is issued under the authority of His Majesty's Treasury and His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise. It receives the sanction of Parliament under our financial procedure. The
classification is not only used for Customs convenience, but for all our statistical returns. Class III covers all articles except food, drink and tobacco, raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured. Class III covers the whole of the rest, all raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured being excluded, and all articles wholly or mainly manufactured being included. I do not need to read the list over to the Committee. It covers no less than 30 pages of close print. The Committee will see that that very wide range should be sufficient for the immediate purpose. That immediate purpose we can only attain by very rapid action. That is why I appeal to hon. Members to give us this Bill at the earliest possible moment. I know that the House of Commons is reluctant to forego any of its usual financial procedure, but it is only the urgency of the case which has necessitated our making this demand upon the generosity of the House. I hope that sanction will be given to carry it out with, I hope, due discretion by the Board of Trade, with the sanction of the Treasury, and, finally, with the confirmation of Parliament.

Mr. ATTLEE: I rise to oppose the Resolution. I oppose it on two grounds —first, the constitutional ground of the revolution which it introduces into our financial procedure, and, secondly, on the ground of the policy which it contains. We are told that this is a special procedure for swift action adopted in respect of an emergency. We all recognise that in an emergency swift action has to be taken, but we want to know a little more about what this emergency is and what has caused it. This is not part of the emergency of which we heard in August. This is a special sort of emergency, and, even taking the reasons put forward for it by the other side, it is a special emergency caused by the return to power of the National Government. We are told that there is a special form of dumping, in that numbers of people are endeavouring to forestall something. The right hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about forestalling, but did not say what these people were forestalling. What are they endeavouring to forestall but the Protectionist measure which the National Government propose to introduce?
It seems clear that these importers, at all events, have no doubt, as the majority of hon. Members opposite seem to have no doubt, that the Government propose to go in for a full measure of Protection. If that be so, what becomes of the formula? What becomes of the inducement to certain Liberals, generally known as the Samuelite Liberals, to join this Government and to appeal to the country under the pretence that this whole question was open and would be considered and might be turned down? It is obvious that in the country generally there is no doubt whatever as to what was intended, and the fact that this matter is put into the hands of the Board of Trade under the right hon. Gentleman with hi? long record in connection with Free Trade, will do very little to establish confidence among those Liberals who still cling to Free Trade.
There is a second reason for introducing this proposal. This emergency which has so suddenly been rushed on the House came up only in the last few days. It emerged really not from the question of these heavy importations or of this dumping but was brought about by the charge of the heavy brigade, the 300 Members lead by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), I was reading the other day that when the Heavy Brigade in the famous charge thundered up, the opposing army opened their ranks and let them come in. That is what the Russians are said to have done in that action. In fact, they avoided the Heavy Brigade and surrendered at the first charge. Not unnaturally this Government has surrendered at the first charge of the heavy brigade led by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth. It may be said that this is a very partisan view to take of the matter, but I have authority for it from an unexceptionable source. It is not a Labour source. I do not think that anyone would accuse the "Financial News" of being a Labour paper; in fact, I am informed that the chairman of the "Financial News" is no less a person than the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), that faithful echo of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Let us see what the "Financial News" says in a leading article.
The anti-dumping cry comes mainly from those who desire a general change of fiscal policy, and are now seeking to justify that change on the ground that it is required to correct the adverse balance of trade and prevent the further depreciation of sterling.
I should like to quote at greater length from this very interesting article. I do not know whether it echoes the views, at second hand, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, or whether the echo always comes afterwards, or whether the hon. Member for North Paddington is not in agreement with the last change of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. But I never read an article more sceptical of the bona fides of the Government, or more sceptical of the whole anti-dumping legislation and the whole Protectionist policy. I will give one other extract from that article before I pass from it. They say:
To subject our foreign trade to Orders in Council, swiftly available and swiftly-applied, would be to substitute a greater for a lesser cause of uncertainty and loss.
Therefore, when it is claimed that this is a special emergency and that therefore this House is entitled to depart from all its principles and to override all its procedure, we say that the emergency was not an external emergency, but one set up by the movement of the Protectionists in the ranks of the party opposite. We have something quite unprecedented here in the action of the Government in endeavouring to rush the House. I must say that I admire their tactics, purely from the point of view of tactics, because by this dumping, which they have themselves provoked, they are enabled to get the House to consider emergency legislation which will allow them to change our whole fiscal policy at half-a-day's notice in two and a-half days of Parliamentary time. I do not suppose that anyone is so simple as to imagine that tariffs, once imposed in an emergency like this, are going to come off very easily. A tariff, once imposed, will lead at once to vested interests, and in effect what we are doing now in this Motion is to give the President of the Board of Trade the right to change our whole fiscal system, the right, in fact, for him to forestall the Budget that should come on next year. It is regrettable that we have not the Noble Viscount, who was described yesterday by
an hon. Member as an acidulated pedant on the subject of Free Trade, in his place to support, with his voice and vote, these very remarkable proposals.
With regard to this proposed procedure, I have stated that it is quite unprecedented, and there is here a very important constitutional point, and I think that hon. Members opposite who really believe in our Constitution and in the Parliamentary system should consider a little as to what they are doing. The House is asked to vote to tax goods. It is not asked to decide what goods shall be taxed; that is left to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The House is not to decide how much taxation shall be put on each class of goods; that is left to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is not to decide what subjects are to be taxed. It is not to give any decisions as to the wisdom of a certain tax or as to the repercussions of taxing one form of import on other trades or exports, but in fact this House is asked to hand over the whole of its taxing powers to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
The right of determining taxation is one of the most vital rights of the House. Years ago the issue was fought out, as between Parliament and the Executive, as to who should have the right to tax the subject, and Parliament won. The Executive at that time was the Crown. The Executive at this time is the Cabinet, but the principle is precisely the same. That great fight was fought over the Bill of Rights, and I want to give quotations as to what the Judges have said on that very important matter of the Bill of Rights. It is a matter, after all, that has been considered. The matter came up, not once nor twice. If you look up Anson on the Constitution, you will find that he laid it down most emphatically that that fight that was fought out in the Bill of Rights against the Crown has had to be carried on since against the Executive. Even in the emergency of the War—and there was a real emergency then, not merely a party manoeuvre emergency—there was an endeavour to secure taxing powers which was refused to Ministers of the Crown when a legal case came before the House of Lords. There was a most emphatic judgment against the Government, and that was
based entirely on the principles of the Bill of Rights. I would like to read an extract from Anson, who is a great authority on the Constitution:
Parliament, which is omnipotent, may, if it chooses, delegate to the Executive any of its powers, but the Courts, in construing a Statute, will not admit an interpretation which would derogate from the Bill of Rights unless the intention to do so is expressed in the clearest possible words. It is true that the fear in 1689 was that the King by his prerogative would claim money; but excessive claims by the executive Government without grant of Parliament are at the present time quite as dangerous and require as careful consideration and restriction from courts of justice.
We make no apology whatever for appearing in this House and standing for these ancient and undoubted rights of the elected representatives of the people. This matter came up in a very important case to which I have already referred, namely, the case of the Attorney-General versus the Wilts United Dairies. We shall there get the idea of the courts as to the position that Parliament ought to take up in respect of these matters. Lord Justice Atkin, in giving judgment in that case, stated:
In view of the historic struggle of the Legislature to secure for itself the sole power to levy money upon the subject, its complete success in that struggle, the elaborate means adopted by the representative House to control the amount, the condition, and the purpose of the levy, the circumstances would be remarkable indeed which would induce the Court to believe that the Legislature had sacrificed all the well known checks and precautions and, not in express words, but by implication, had entrusted a Minister of the Crown with undefined and unlimited powers of imposing charges upon the subject for purposes connected with his Department.
I do not claim that the present case is exactly on all fours with that. No doubt in this Resolution the Government is inviting the House of Commons to abandon its powers and to delegate them to a Minister of the Crown, but the warnings of the Judicature on the dangers of giving unlimited powers to the Executive, of allowing taxation to be imposed without laying down the amount, the conditions, and the purpose, are as strong in this case as they were in that. It is quite impossible to ride off on the pretext that this is not really taxing the subject at all, but that it is merely a method of excluding goods from importation. In effect, the method you
have chosen to adopt does inflict a charge on the subject. It does pick out certain persons and say that they shall pay a tax, and you cannot ride off on the idea that this is merely a matter of State policy, because this is the method which you have chosen. There are other methods open to the Government, but they have not chosen to adopt them. I say that this is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent, and I can imagine what would have been said if anybody from this side, when in power, had asked Parliament to give this sort of power to a Minister.

Mr. COVE: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade is absent while our representative is speaking, that he did the same thing last night, and that he is treating the Opposition in this House with scant courtesy? This is supposed to be a national emergency, of which the right hon. Gentleman is the chief guardian at the moment, yet he leaves the Chamber, and the Debate proceeds without his being present. Is it not necessary that the President of the Board of Trade should be sent for at once, in order that he may be present during this Debate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I have frequently observed that a Minister has been absent from the Chamber when the subject for which his Department was responsible has been under discussion, but I would point out that the Board of Trade is represented.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Further to that point of Order. I want to move the Adjournment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. BEVAN: This is not the first occasion on which this has happened. It is becoming customary in this House. Last night, for example, there was no speaker at all when—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already warned the hon. Member that I do not intend to accept a Motion to report Progress. He, therefore, is not in order in speaking at this moment.

Mr. COVE: It is exceptionally important to have the President of the
Board of Trade here. Is it that he is a Free Trader and afraid to face the issue?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in making a speech now.

Mr. ATTLEE: I want to deal a little more with this very remarkable procedure. There was a book published not long ago by the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, a book called "The New Despotism," in which he pointed out how, in one way and another, gradually the powers of legislation of this House were being taken from them and were being handed over to Government officials or to members of the Executive. That complaint has been voiced very often, generally by Conservatives. We have not heard any of them complain yet, and yet this is the most outrageous piece of bureaucracy that was ever proposed in this House. Let us just see what the Lord Chief Justice says on this subject, and let us see what is going to happen, because here in effect you are going to have decisions made that certain members of the public, certain citizens of this country, should pay certain taxes. There is to be no inquiry whatever in which they will be able to put forward their case for or against taxation. There is to be no publicity. There is no judicial procedure whatever. Let us see what the Lord Chief Justice says on that point, and I will ask the questions that he puts of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. He says:
Will anybody at this time of day deny that it is essential for the proper administration of justice that the decisions should be based on evidence?
There is no evidence to be given here.
That the evidence shall be heard in the presence of both parties"—
There are many parties who are affected here. You will have a case of stopping an importation which at the same time will affect the export of another trade in this country, and that trade will have no right to complain or to be heard.
That the evidence shall be heard in the presence of both parties who are given the opportunity of cross-examination. Evidence not tested by cross-examination is nearly always misleading and practically valueless.
I think the experience of all Legislatures in dealing with tariffs will bear that out.
It is also essential to the proper administration of justice that every party should have an opportunity of being heard.
6.30 p.m.
The Government do not intend that there shall be any discussion on these proposals. They do not intend that they shall ever come before this House until they have been in force. I was amazed at the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Board of Trade can only take the first step. Let us see what will happen. Everyone knows that the Government intend to adjourn the House in a very short time, and it is known that they propose that the House shall go into Recess for two months. There is a provision for 28 days beyond that, so that for three whole months the subject will be taxed and there will be no opportunity for bringing before this House any question whatever about it. Everyone will agree with the Lord Chief Justice that that is a travesty of justice. We have had departmental legislation in one form and another, but we have had nothing like this ever proposed in this House before. I suppose that we are asked by the Government, which went to the country not on a programme, but on personalities, to cast all our faith on the personality of the President of the Board of Trade. He has been selected for this purpose, because he has never previously been a very violent Protectionist. There has been a great deal of discusion on how necessary it was to offset a full-blown Protectionist at the Exchequer by something rather wobbling at the Board of Trade.
We do not know how long the present President of the Board of Trade may last. He may be easily swept aside, and this Bill may be operated by a full-blown Protectionist. I do not wish to depress the right hon. Gentleman at all, but I should say that if he were fully acquainted with the Members of this House, lie would not think his prospects of survival were very good. I notice that on land values there is a perfect howl going up from all quarters of the House where the Conservative party sit, that, in spite of all his wonderful services in the election, our new Viscount's pet baby
shall be strangled as soon as possible. If they do it for him whose services are admitted, how much more will they do it for the President of the Board of Trade who, after all, has only the story of the Post Office savings to put forward in his favour? It is quite illusory to put any trust in the idea that this Bill is to be moderately worked by Liberal and ex-Labour members of the Government. I do not altogether approve of the Safeguarding machinery, but there was at least some sort of a suggestion of inquiry. That is all being swept away in a moment.
The real reason, of course, for this procedure, as everybody knows, is not in the least the wonderful emergency; it is because the Government are afraid of a discussion on the Floor of the House. [Laughter.] The hon. Member who laughs was probably not present when we had those illuminating discussions on the Safeguarding Duties, and the spectacle on the Floor of this House of one hon. Member interested in paper and cardboard who was violently opposed by another Conservative Member interested in malted milk. Another got up and defended custard powders, and the Floor of the House was a perfect huckstering place for all the trades. I remember very well an admirable lesson on Protection in a Committee upstairs, when two hon. Members, who are perhaps two of the strongest Protectionists in the House, differed most violently on the question of protecting electrical machinery, because one was a purchaser and the other was interested in a constituency which produced it.
We are to have these duties imposed without any consideration of what their general effect will be on the country. The right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of trade and industry we all-admit, indicated with evident approval some of the considerations that had to be taken into account before you inflict tariffs. But this is all to take place behind a veil; it is not to be discussed in the House, We are very likely to have Protection in regard to iron and steel. We are not, however, to be allowed to have a full discussion in the House on the very difficult question as to which side of the iron and steel industry you want to preserve. We shall not he able to trace out the interesting dumping that
goes on of British coal to Germany, the dumping of Belgian steel to England, and the dumping of the finished article to the United States or to our oversea Dominions. We shall have no discussion on the effect of retaliation, or the effect of putting a duty on goods that come predominantly from one country, which will result in the cutting off of the market, let us say, for the coal of South Wales. All this is to be left to the sweet will of the President of the Board of Trade.
There was never such an impudent proposal brought before the House. We often used to hear in the last Parliament talk about the decay of Parliamentary institutions. This is surely the dotage of Parliamentary institutions. We have 500 or more Members, many of them introduced for the first time into the House, who are willing to sign away privileges for which their, or at any rate, our ancestors fought. I would like to ask a question which occurred to me when I had time before coming here to glance at this week's "Punch," in which there was an interesting cartoon. It showed Mr. Punch and the Prime Minister in conversation at the docks, which were crowded with enormous packing cases, and Mr. Punch asked the Prime Minister: "Who are the supporters of the National Government who are doing all this importing?" There are none of these importers in the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, there are not. They are all good Conservatives and good Liberals, though I do not know what variety of Liberals.

Mr. HOWARD: They are Free Traders.

Mr. ATTLEE: I had a letter on this point saying that a large firm that was undoubtedly controlled by Conservatives had introduced all kinds of foreign goods. They are the importers, not the working-men. Hon. Members opposite are very inclined to attack this party because we are knit together on certain principles and because we trade unionists object to blacklegs. How soon are you going to deal with your national blacklegs, the people who, as the President of the Board of Trade said, are selling the pass for you? Who are these people? They are the supporters of the National Government.

Mr. HOWARD: The co-operative societies.

Mr. ATTLEE: If you look through this list you will see masses of articles with which the co-operative societies never deal. I have never been of that school that says, "I welcome dumping." The great exponent of that school is a Member of the present Government, the Lord Privy Seal. I heard the Noble Viscount say, "I love dumping; I welcome dumping." There is also the Home Secretary and others who have not been averse from dumping. We on these benches have never stood for free dumping. We have always stood for an ordered economic system. There is plenty of dumping by this country in other countries, encouraging the ridiculous warfare that has brought so much trouble on the world. We believe in an ordered plan of economic development. Some hon. Members believe in that too, I think.
We have had a great deal of talk on the scientific tariff; it has even been worked out, I am told, by the late Professor Hewens. Apparently, you are forestalling your scientific tariff now; it is now to be based on what happens at this particular moment in what is called an excessive importation of certain articles, and you are going to build up any number of vested interests which will make any form of scientific tariff absolutely impossible. As a matter of fact, there never has been a scientific tariff. The only science that you want to know in framing a tariff is the science of lobbying and the science of corruption. This tariff is to be imposed without any conception of what should be the economic future of this country and of what are the things we should conserve in the national economic interest, without any consideration on the part of the majority of Members of this House, because they are surrendering all their functions and handing them over to the President of the Board of Trade.
I do not know what the conception of the President of the Board of Trade of the economic future of this country is, hut if you are to embark on a tariff policy, you should have some clear conception of that future. You want to have some conception of the relation of this country to other parts of the world. Here I wish
to put a pertinent question. What about the Dominions in all this. I hope the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) will get up and ask what is going to be done about Empire Free Trade. There is nothing said here about Empire preference. In the Dominions, where we have tariffs with Empire preferences, there are some of the most effective means of keeping out imported goods that I have seen anywhere. If you study the Canadian tariffs, you will see that, despite the preferences to this country, they are framed to protect absolutely the home producer. We are entitled to know from the Government what they are going to do about that. I have examined as far as I can, in the light of the figures given yesterday, some of the imports that will be dealt with. One, for instance, is non-ferrous metals. Their importation in the first 10 days of November was £1,012,921 in value, as against £1,971,185 in October. That is to say, in 10 days they had amounted to nearly half the importations of the previous month. We can take it that that comes under the category of an unusual amount of importation. I notice, further, in looking through the items, that at least 20 per cent. of those imports are from our Dominions or our Colonies. Are they to be kept out? Tin is included. Is tin to be kept out in the interests of Cornwall?
Finally, we come to the point which really does concern us, and that is what is the true problem? I would commend to hon. Members an article in the "Financial News" and an article in the financial columns of the "Times"—not exactly a Labour organ—if they would know what the real problem is. If we are to keep out all these goods how, it is asked, are we to receive payment for capital invested overseas? How are our Dominions to get along if they are not to be allowed to send goods here? How are we to get payments from the Continent, and how are we to keep up our export trade if imports are kept out? I do not know what the great exporting interests of the country will say to these proposals. Eventually it will be found, I believe, that the result is only a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The right hon. Gentleman will come here to tell us that we have created prosperity in some one industry, giving more employment there,
but against that we shall have a bitter cry from some other industry which has been knocked out. This is not a national policy at all, not even a genuine emergency policy. It is a policy under which Ministers who, at all events until recently, did not believe in full-blooded Protection, have surrendered to the menace of their back-benchers, led by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth. I wish that instead of a Ministry camouflaged by the presence of certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen we had had an honest Protectionist Government. They would have carried out their policy, whether it be good or bad, better than a number of half-hearted people who are doing it merely in order to hold their positions.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) for his kindly references to myself in the course of his speech, but I think we must all agree that his reasoning has left us a little confused. Just before he sat down he was talking of the definition of a scientific tariff, and said there was only one definition, that it meant lobbying and corruption. At this early stage it is a little ungracious of the hon. Member to repudiate so emphatically Mr. Arthur Henderson, who, I thought, was still regarded as one of the leaders of the once great Labour party. [Interruption.] He is still the leader of the party, I am told. It must be remembered that Mr. Henderson said that the policy of tariffs was worthy of consideration, and it will be a shock to him to find that the policy which he regarded as worthy of consideration can be sized up only as "lobbying and corruption." When the hon. Gentleman expresses alarm about our export trade I beg him to remember that every protected country has been more successful with its export trade since the War than has this country, and that in the last three years this country has fallen from its supreme position in the matter of the export of manufactured goods to the third position. At the beginning of his sepech the hon. Member asked, "What is this emergency?" I did not think that, so soon after the facts had become so well known to the country, any hon. Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Front Bench would ask what caused the emergency. I thought we all know that we are still
suffering from the grave peril caused by the complete failure of the then Government, now His Majesty's Opposition, to deal with the situation. [Interruption.] Of course there were some great and heroic exceptions, men who put their country before their party.
The hon. Gentleman asked why, if it is an emergency to-day, it was not an emergency 10 days ago? My hon. Friends and I feel that the situation has been very serious for the last seven years, but, in fact, it is only since the election that we have had such a very grave aggravation of the position in regard to imports. The President of the Board of Trade is perfectly justified in saying that three weeks ago there was not any sign of a very great change in the position as compared with past years, but what has happened in the last fortnight or so must have alarmed even the champions of the British working men who are sitting on the Opposition benches. The remarkable figures given yesterday in answer to a question which I addressed to the President of the Board of Trade make it clear that in the first 10 days of November a quantity of manufactured goods in Class III was imported into this country such as would have given employment to 1,000,000 of our unemployed. When the question is asked, "Why an emergency; why not discuss this thing for a fortnight or three weeks; why not go through all the usual procedure?" The answer is that not only have the unemployed been suffering for a very long time, but that their position has been immensely aggravated by what is happening, and that the Government now have a definite mandate to take action.
The President of the Board of Trade said one of the reasons why an emergency had arisen was that foreign countries had suddenly decided to take action. They recognised the mandate which the nation gave to the Government. No one in the House, I think, likes to see this speeding up of our legislative machinery, in ordinary circumstances we should all agree that it was unfortunate, but at the present time we cannot wait. It is a question of hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Minutes."] Yes, and of minutes; because every minute of the day and night all through this
last year £500 worth of manufactured goods has been imported, and the men whom the Opposition claim to champion have had to go to the Employment Exchanges. The hon. Member for Lime-house made a reference to "some blacklegs" who were importing at an excessive rate at the present time. Does that fit in with the other statement we hear that there is no excessive importation? In any case such importation is not confined to people of one political belief. Human nature being what it is, unless the State intervenes we cannot expect to see universal action. After all, one has heard of ships going into Avonmouth laden with Russian wheat, and I have been told that that wheat was destined for co-operative mills. I do not know whether that is right or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why mention it?"] I am only asking if it is so. If the hon. Members of the Opposition party, who obtain so much assistance—moral only, of course—from the co-operative movement can stand up in their places and say that co-operative societies have not taken advantage of the economic situation of the world to buy this vast amount of cheap produce, very well, Whey have a right to criticise others; if not, I think it would be better for them to keep quiet.
Next I should like to address one or two words to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Everybody realises that in an emergency Measure it was necessary to confine action to certain great and well-defined groups of industries. Had it been possible—I am afraid I should have been ruled out of order—I should have liked to move an Amendment, not in any hostile spirit, that the words "Class III" should be omitted, in order that the President of the Board of Trade might be able, if necessary and in consultation with the President of the Board of Agriculture, to deal with certain classes of agricultural imports, in the next week or fortnight, or even when the House is in Recess. I should have liked to see him reserve powers for that purpose. I suppose every one, even those who sit for industrial constituencies, must realise that the position of agriculture to-day is even more tragic than the position of the cotton, woollen, iron and steel and mining industries. There is a crisis in the cereal areas such as we have never known. [Interruption.]
Only in the last three weeks, in an area of 10 miles with which I am very well conversant, 10 farmers have had to throw in their hands.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that under this Resolution the question of agriculture cannot be raised.

Sir H. CROFT: I am obliged, Captain Bourne, for your Ruling, and I realise that I ought not to have allowed myself to be led astray by the hon. Gentleman. I will conclude my sentence by merely expressing my apology that I should have been led into saying that I -wish there had been wider possibilities for the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this question. It is sometimes thought that Class III covers all manufactured goods, but that is not so, though I am afraid I must not point out that there are several million pounds worth of manufactured agricultural products which I wish had been in Class III. May I say, also, that a very large number of Members are concerned about the exact interpretation of the word "abnormal?" We may have a more complete explanation of what it means and what it will cover in the course of these Debates, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to the fact that there are a large number of goods within the category of Class III the imports of which have certainly been abnormal during the past seven years. Where is he going to begin in deciding when things are abnormal?
7.0 p.m.
I will give one or two instances, beginning with bricks, things which we are quite competent to produce for ourselves. In the first eight months of 1924 we imported 4,000,000 bricks. In the first eight months of 1931 we imported 137,000,000. That is an increase of 3,300 per cent.—a very serious matter for the workers of this country. I could go through the whole list, but I do not want to weary the House with figures. In domestic and fancy glass in the same period the imports have gone up by 2,871 per cent. There has been a great increase in the percentage imports of carpets and rugs; rubber goods have gone up by 492 per cent., and, as is well known, electric lamps, cotton and piece-goods and woollen and worsted yarns and piece-goods have also increased. Where is it that the right hon. Gentleman commences the "abnormal"? It seems to me that
we have to consider here the abnormality of the abnormal. I do hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that this problem has been piling up and that there are some industries where the importation has gone up steadily year by year until British industry can hardly hold its own. Clearly, in that case it is not sufficient to say that there has been a great increase in imports in the last fortnight of October or the first fortnight of November. I hope that he will realise these facts, for it will be heartbreaking to hundreds of thousands of workers in the industries to which I have referred if they are to receive no aid simply because he cannot prove that their condition became more abnormal in the last three weeks or three months.
I believe that everyone will agree that conditions have certainly altered very much for the worse in the last few weeks and that no one outside this House would blame the Government for speeding-up in this matter, seeing that every day this position lasts vasts masses of our countrymen are being affected. The whole country, no matter what section or party people may come from, will expect immediate action, and the whole nation will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for going straight ahead with his policy.

Major GWILYM LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Baronet excepting to say one thing in regard to the emergency. The Measure which we shall be discussing shortly is an emergency Measure, but according to the last speaker it is an emergency that has been going on for the last seven years. I would point out that during that seven years the favourable trade balance of this country has been on the average £80,000,000 a year. I daresay that we can survive a few emergencies of the sort he has depicted in the intervening years. I want to address a few remarks to the President of the Board of Trade. I have heard him on many occasions in this House, and always, if I may say so, with admiration, but I have enjoyed speeches of his more than I did yesterday. I may also say, without disrespect, for it is the greatest compliment I can pay him, that his speech yesterday was not one of his best. He started by making as good a case for Free Trade as I think could be
made, and finished it by promising to make this country one of the highest Protectionist countries in the world. He told us that he had not altered his views. If the Measure which, we gather, will be before us to-morrow, means anything at all, it means there has been a very considerable change of view on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He told us that he does not believe in doing things by halves. He certainly does not. He told us that the situation had helped him to change his view. I want to ask him what is the changed situation which has led him to change his views. Has our adverse balance this year increased so alarmingly as to make it necessary for him to change the views which he has held for so many years?
Take the first 10 months of this year as compared with 1929 and 1930. In the first 10 months of 1929 the visible adverse balance was £307,000,000. In 1930 it had increased to £313,000,000 and for the first 10 months of this year it had gone up to £323,000,000. According to the trade returns, that is not due to any increase in importation of Class III articles. Rather is it due to the loss of exports in our own Class III articles, particularly in the textile industries. I may point out to the hon. Baronet that a great many of us believe the thing which has played a very great part in the loss of our export trade has been the return to the Gold Standard in 1925. Up to that year we were holding our own in the export of manufactured articles fairly well.
With regard to this adverse balance of trade, I think the Committee will forgive me if I say that there has been a great deal of loose talk about it, particularly during the election. If I may take the first 10 months of this year, and average them up to 12 months, we may assume that our visible adverse balance this year will be in the neighbourhood of £390,000,000 to £400,000,000. If we look at the years since the War, we find that in 1920 our visible adverse was £343,000,000, but our favourable trade balance was £252,000,000. It may be interesting to point out that the year 1920, which was a year in which we had the largest imports into this country which we have ever seen, and the largest exports, and that in the year our ship-
ping earnings were the highest ever recorded. In 1925 we had £400,000,000 as an adverse visible balance but the favourable trade balance was £64,000,000. In 1927 we had nearly £400,000,000 adverse visible balance but we had a favourable balance of £114,000,000.
The real fact which emerges from a study of these figures surely is that the volume of our imports and exports has gone down, and that the adverse balance which we shall probably get this year is due not to any increase in our imports but to the fact that our shipping earnings will be enormously down, and that our interests from overseas investments will also be down. We carry about two-thirds of our imports in British ships and about two-thirds of our exports and how putting on tariffs—which will give these ships still less to do—and making it more difficult for foreigners to pay us our interest will turn an adverse trade balance into a. favourable one I find it very difficult to understand.
What is the test going to be in regard to the articles in Class III which are to have this duty levied upon them? The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he would not waste the time of the House in defining dumping. With great respect, I think that is very important. If we are to take as a definition of dumping what the vast majority of those in the Conservative party used at the last election, we are still the greatest dumpers in the world. I understand there was a definition of dumping in a Measure which was brought before this House just after the War, and that definition was that dumping should be defined as goods imported into this country from countries enjoying a tariff and imported here at a cost below the cost of production in their own countries. I believe that is a definition of dumping which has been used in this House. But we are not to have a definition of dumping in the present Measure. Is the test to be the quantity of goods that come in in this Class? May I ask what periods are to be taken? Are we to take comparative periods? For instance, I am told that goods have been coming in in abnormal quantities in the last few days. The Parliamentary Secretary yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. Baronet, said that, unfortunately, he could not give comparative figures for the 10 days of 1930, but he gave
us the figures for 1931. That may mean anything. The figure has not the slightest value unless you can compare it with something else. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the corresponding data was not available for 1930.
Surely we ought to know what is the test by which a duty is to be put upon these articles? The President of the Board of Trade told us that goods had been coming in in abnormal quantities in the last few days. But why? Those goods have been coming in because the Government have let it be known that they were going to impose tariffs. The effect of that has not been confined to the first ten days of November. There is no doubt that the acceleration of October is to a very large extent due to the fact that the foreigner thought the National Government were determined to put on tariffs when they got back. They took a chance on the Government getting back, and I am sorry to say they have been justified. I am certain that the acceleration for October is due to a very large extent to the foreigner trying to anticipate the result of the election. But is that the way we ought to go about putting the trade and industry of this country right, legislating by taking examples from periods which have no relation whatever to the actual position of the country? I pass from that to ask a question which the right hon. Gentleman has himself asked on many occasions. What is raw material? He himself said some time ago:
I believe if the Conservative party wore to come into office and introduce a tariff"—
I am certain he never thought he would be doing it himself—
the tariff would break down on this simple question, what is and what is not a raw material.
He then went on to say:
For instance, what is the good of saying to the galvanised sheet of tin-plate manufacturer, We will only tell you we are in favour of a general tariff; but whether steel is to be in that tariff we will not say at the present time.'
We were in rather a similar situation yesterday. The one thing that the galvanised tin manufacturer wants to know is whether he can get the steel he wants freely in the world wherever he can buy it cheaply. Does the right hon. Gentleman still take the same view about raw material? Worsted yarns, he said, is a finished product,
but for the man who wishes to weave it into fabric it is a raw material. The finished product of the tanner is the raw material for the Northampton boot trade, and so you can go on through all these articles. What is a raw material? Are the needs of the manufacturers of this country to be taken into consideration when this tariff is being imposed? Yesterday the only test which the right hon. Gentleman gave was the abnormal quantities which have been imported. Are not the needs of the manufacturers, to whom in some cases the finished article may be the raw material, to be considered when a tariff is to be drawn up? We were given a list yesterday which included plate and sheet glass, and I assume that those articles are the raw material for some trades. Knives, surgical instruments, vacuum cleaners, carpets, and washing machines were mentioned, and then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not think a tax on any of those things would affect the cost of living. Surely washing machines are bought only by those people who want to use them. I remember seeing a very handsome photograph of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) in regard to these articles. Do these articles not come under "raw materials" and do they not go up in price when a duty is placed upon them?
Has the President of the Board of Trade changed his views upon that subject? I know that not long ago the right hon. Gentleman held strong views on the question of raising the cost of raw materials to the people of this country. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) had been in his place, because I would have liked to ask him if he had changed his views; he used to hold very strongly that tariffs would raise the cost of living to the people of this country. Many of the articles in Class III are undoubtedly raw materials. Can the President of the Board of Trade inform the House when a raw material is not a raw material, and does he not agree with me that if these articles are not carefully dealt with the effect will be to put an additional burden on industry instead of helping it?

Sir H. CROFT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give to the House a single case where safeguarding has had the effect of putting up the price?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I know that in every tariff country in Europe the standard of life is very much lower than it is in this country. The fact is that, although prices have come down, the duty prevents the full extent of the drop being passed on to the consumer. I always thought that those who advocated tariffs wanted them because they could not compete with the foreigner. Surprise was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the fact that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) declared yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to stand at this Box and once more to affirm his cherished opinions. I am perfectly happy standing where I am to-day making the kind of speech I am making, and I think the President of the Board of Trade would be happier making the kind of speech which I am making at the present moment. Something has been said about the theories that embarrassed us in the past. I do not regard Free Trade as a theory, but as a principle which those of us who believe in it do so because we think it is good for the country.
We have been told that there is an emergency, but I defy anyone to show that any change has taken place in our industrial life which justified anyone in saying that tariffs are necessary. We have been told for years by supporters of tariffs that this country has been ruined by the importation of foreign goods. The fact is that, as importations have gone down, our unemployment has gone up, and, if our present state is due to importations, will hon. Members explain why unemployment has gone up when imports have gone down?
I understand that we are not allowed to discuss the subject of agriculture, but may I point out that this is an emergency measure dealing with an emergency situation in industry, and agriculture is the hardest hit industry of all. Agricultural implements and many of the articles mentioned in Class III have gone up in price recently, and this directly affects the agricultural industry. Perhaps I shall not be out of order in referring to the effect which these proposals will have upon agriculture. Many of us believe that the revival of agriculture in this country would do more to produce a revival of industry than anything else.
Why has this great industry not been included? The President of the Board of Trade stated in answer to a question that he could not say whether we should know before the House rises whether any Measure would be brought in dealing with agriculture. That is the one industry which has suffered most from the depreciation of sterling. We have always contended, as Free Traders, that, if you had tariffs, the farmer would pay more for his feeding stuffs and fertilisers and would not get any better prices for his product. Several articles connected with agriculture come under Clause III, and between 14th September and 14th November this year the price of linseed cake went up by 17s. 6d. per ton, maize meal 25s. per ton, bran 25s. a ton, and feeding wheat 10s. a ton. Sulphate of ammonia went up 20s. per ton, basic slag 5s., and potash manures 3s. 6d. per ton. The price of farmers' produce has gone down much below what it was expected to realise at this time of the year. If Protection is the remedy for this state of things in agriculture, I cannot understand why this industry has not been included under the proposals of the Government. All we are told is that there is going to be a quota and potatoes are to be dealt with.
I do not think that this Measure will do any good at all, and I can conceive it doing a very great deal of harm. We are suffering to-day from loss of exports more than from an increase of imports, and I do not think any hon. Member will deny that fact. The cause of the dislocation of the trade of the world is the existence of high tariff barriers in foreign countries. We know that the world is suffering from over-production, and that if we had a more free exchange of commodities there would be a higher standard of living and better wages. But because we have not a free exchange of commodities we have depression all over the world, and the proposals of this country are very likely to add to the present chaos. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in June of this year, said:
Those of us engaged in trade who are concerned with ships and the men who man them know that those employed in the docks in their hundreds of thousands are dependent on foreign trade. It is well to realise that all those live by foreign trade. That British foreign trade is the essence
of our being and that freedom is the solid basis on which to build.
I ask hon. Members to compare that quotation with the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday, and I appeal to him not to waste his gifts on this kind of thing, but to use his knowledge and great experience to find some means by which foreign trade, which he admits is the very essence of our being, may be restored and if possible extended.

Mr. MABANE: I claim the indulgence of the House as a new Member, and I offer as my excuse for intervening in the Debate my desire to draw attention to a topic which has not yet been mentioned, but which has a great bearing on the subject under discussion, and in regard to which I claim to possess some special knowledge. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) was unduly apprehensive in believing that the Measure now before the House will, if it becomes law, have the effect of raising the cost of living to the people of this country. My excuse for introducing the subject to which I shall refer is to be found in the last sentence of the Motion, which reads:
The Act aforesaid may include such incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary or expedient in relation to the matters aforesaid.
7.30 p.m.
The topic I desire to refer to is that of retail distribution. So far hon. Members have concentrated on the productive side of industry, and their object has been to maintain the standard of living of the people of this country. It is very proper that that standard should be maintained by the maintenance of wages, and that is an aspect of the question which has not received much attention in the discussion, yet the business of retail distribution is also intimately linked with the Motion now before the House, and I think that the business of retail distribution is very considerably misunderstood. So far it has received scant attention, and, in my view, if I may say so without being presumptuous, improper attention, from politicians. Ordinarily speaking, it is not regarded as an industrial problem at all. Retail distribution is not regarded as an occupation in which the best brains of the country might properly be employed, but I think that, if it did receive the attention that it ought to receive, we
should have a chance of reducing the cost of living of the people of this country far more considerably than hon. Members probably imagine. It is commonly said that retail prices are too high, and the retailer is set down as a profiteer, the matter being considered to end there; but that is by no means the whole case.
We may agree that retail prices are too high, and we may agree that the level of retail prices is a vital factor in the cost of living. Ordinarily, in the retail trade, the mark-up on the cost price at which the goods come into the shop or store is somewhere between 40 and 50 per cent.—clearly a very considerable sum. If, in the case of a piece of cloth,, all the goods and services that have gone into the make-up of that cloth, from the time when it leaves the sheep's back in Australia to the time when it arrives in the shop, are represented by a figure of 100, it seems ridiculous that the person who sells the piece of cloth over the counter should require to increase that price to, say, 150. That is a very high figure, but that gross figure is not the end of the story. The retail distributor has to bear certain overhead charges, which consume the greater part of that mark-up, and which result in his having at the end no more than a normal profit on his turnover—no more profit than would satisfy anyone engaged in any manufacturing industry.
I want to ask the House to consider why this mark-up should be so high, because I am certain that the reason is not ordinarily understood. The reason why this mark-up is so high is two-fold. It depends, first of all, on what I may term the uneven flow of demand with which the retailer has to cope; and, secondly, on the fact that the public are inexpert as buyers. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that in a retail store the difference between the turnover of the maximum day's trading and that of the minimum day's trading is as 20 to 1, and that there is a similar disparity in trading as between months and as between weeks. The result is that the retail distributor has to carry an organisation, a staff and a plant sufficient to cope with his maximum load, and that maximum load occurs only occasionally during the year. Consequently, throughout the greater part of the year, the retail dis-
tributor has to carry facilities out of all proportion to his turnover.
The next point is that the public are inexpert as buyers. The retail distributor who desires to sell goods of good quality and of good value has not sufficient advantage over the one who is selling goods that are not of good value and not of good quality. The public in general has but one criterion of value, and that is price. Ordinarily, if an article is offered for sale at a certain price, and it is generally assumed that that is the normal price, people will not buy that article if its price is reduced. It is extraordinary, but it is often the case that, when a retail distributor wants to sell, for example, a pair of shoes for which a fair price is 21s., but which his public are accustomed to think ought to cost 42s., he has to sell them by offering them as shoes whose normal price is 42s., reduced to 21s.
These two factors are vitally important in causing retail prices to keep up, and I suggest that, side by side with these measures to prevent abnormal importations, the Government should make an approach to the retail distributors of this country. I had a conversation by telephone this morning with the President of the Incorporated Association of Retail Distributors, the largest association of retail distributors in this country, and he assured me that the retail distributors of this country are extremely anxious to co-operate with the Government in securing that, when this Measure is passed, there shall be no increase in the prices of goods to the body of the people of this country. [Interruption.] It may be easy to suggest, as I gather it is suggested on the Opposition Benches, that that means nothing, but I think that it definitely means something, because already the retail distributors of this country have made substantial efforts to get over the difficulties of uneven flow of demand and of inexpert buying knowledge on the part of the public. They have also, this year, made serious efforts to increase the percentage of British goods that they sell. I am certain that, if the Government were to get in touch with the retail distributors, they would find a very ready response. They would
find that the retail distributors, like themselves, desire to do everything possible to secure that the prices of commodities in this country shall not rise. I suggest that, if these two difficulties could be overcome, there is a possiblity that retail prices in this country may not merely be maintained at their present figure, but that a reduction in retail prices may be secured of anything up to 15 per cent. That would be a very substantial result.
Already the process has been going on. Already those engaged in retail distribution have been endeavouring to engage in research in order to get over these difficulties, and I should like to suggest how these difficulties may be overcome. We want to secure that there shall be an even flow of demand. I would remind the Government that they will not be dealing with a derelict industry, or an industry that has made no profits at all in recent years. They will be dealing with an industry which has had considerable profits and considerable success, and one which already has behind it the two great powers of advertising and the Press. If the Government were to assist those engaged in retail distribution to educate the people of this country into new buying habits, so that the flow of demand might be spread more evenly over the year, the month, the week, and even over the hours within the day, the efficiency of retail distribution might be improved, and the present amazingly large mark-up might be reduced.
I would also suggest that, if the Government were to go further and assist the organised retail trades of this country in the development of standardisation of the quality and value of the goods sold, they would assist the public to become more expert in their buying. Already this has been done in certain directions. For instance we have the National Mark. There was a time, not so very long ago, when anyone who went into a shop to buy an egg never knew what sort of an egg he was going to get, but nowadays, by reason of the measures which have been adopted with regard to marking, one knows precisely the sort of egg that one is going to get. I believe that the organised retail trade is anxious to assist in this matter, and that, if the process of standardisation and marking were carried
further, the public of this country would rapidly become more expert in their buying.
There seems to me to be no reason why, if this Measure become law, retail prices in this country should go up. Yesterday reference was made to profiteering, and to-day the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke has suggested that this Measure will result in a decrease in the standard of living of the people of this country by reason of increased prices. I suggest that there is no reason whatever why that should happen if, side by side with putting the suggested law into force, the Government will approach the organised retail trades and assist them in research into these two problems and in educating the public; and I think I can say with sufficient authority that they will find the organised retail trades of this country anxious to respond tenfold to every advance that the Government make. All that I would ask is that that advance should be friendly, and that the attitude that has so often been adopted in this House, that the retail distributor is a kind of parasite and that high prices are to be attributed solely to the objectionable personal qualities of the retailer, should be abandoned, and that, instead, the Government should approach the retail trades of this country as people who are extremely anxious to do their patriotic duty in keeping the standard of living as it is, or even improving it, and who are anxious above all to sell British goods, and British goods first. That will assist the people of this country, not merely to maintain their present standard of living, but, even in the face of all our present difficulties, to improve it.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I am sure I shall be expressing the view of the whole Committee when I extend to the hon. Member who has just spoken their very sincere congratulations, and express their desire that he will intervene frequently in our discussions. We are engaged this evening in considering the first piece of legislation that the National Government has introduced, and, after having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday and to his speech this afternoon, and having considered the proposals of the Measure which is now before us, I am driven to
the conclusion that one of the chief curses of a National Government is that, while there is a National Government, there must be a crisis. Unless there is a crisis, the excuse for the existence of a National Government disappears, and, if there is not a crisis, then, in order to continue, they have to manufacture one. Consequently, I am afraid that the industry and commerce of this country, which the National Government came into existence to stabilise, will never be stabilised until we see the end of the National Government, and that, as long as it is there, it will always have to create a condition of neurasthenia in the country in order to justify its continuance in office.
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions in this House, and I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) when he said that he always listened to him with considerable admiration. Yesterday, however, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman fell far below his usual form. He was obviously performing a task in which his heart was not involved. He was engaged, not so much in dealing with a grave national crisis, as in attempting to preserve the facade of the national character of the Government which is necessary if their reactionary bluff is to be continued. The right hon. Gentleman said, in the course of his speech, that his views had not changed at all. He said:
If my hon. Friend asks me to retain the same views that I had before the crisis in August, I say I do retain the same views, but I have to deal with new conditions, and, still holding those views, I believe that the only way we can face up to our new anxieties is by adapting ourselves to every practical problem as it arises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1931; col. 54.5, Vol. 259.]
I defy hon. Members to find any sense at all in that sentence, except to conclude that the right hon. Gentleman still believes in Free Trade but that he is no longer defending his Free Trade views. Rather, he is simply defending his position as President of the Board of Trade in a Government which has to depend upon a majority of Tory votes. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman is compelled to violate his own views, to offend his own philosophy in order to try to preserve the national character of the
Government. Parliamentary language prevents me from adequately describing a person of that type. Hon. Members know the term usually applied to a person who says he believes one thing and does another, and I am forbidden by Parliamentary usage from adequately describing him. We should have had much more respect for him if he had said that the change that had come over the character of British commerce and of our commercial relationships with the rest of the world had compelled him to modify his views and that now he is driven to the conclusion that fundamental changes in our fiscal policy are necessary in order to meet new world conditions. But he is still a Free Trader, and this high priest of Free Trade is the person to whom is entrusted the task of reversing 70 years of fiscal policy. This is just a presage of the sort of conduct we shall see from the National Government before it ends its miserable life.
We have been told that this Bill is introduced in order to deal with a grave national crisis. I am not at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee), who said he objected on constitutional grounds to the procedure adopted in this Bill. I am profoundly convinced that the country is not interested in the procedure of this House. If any alteration of our procedure, any quickening of the machinery of legislation, will improve the economic condition of the country, I am afraid the people will accept it. I am, consequently, not going to protest too much about the unconventional, unorthodox character of the procedure we are asked to support. I am going to try to examine this proposal from the point of view of the effect it will have upon our commerce, on our relationships with Foreign Powers, and on the organisation of the economic life of the country in the immediate and remote future.
The House is entitled, if legislation of this most unusual character is to be introduced, and if it is to be asked to surrender its traditional privileges, to ask why it is that neither yesterday nor to-day has the right hon. Gentleman placed before the House comparative figures of imports for September and October of this year and September and October of 1930 and 1929. We are asked
to give the Government these powers, because there are abnormal imports coming into the country. If we are asked to do that, surely we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft): What does he mean by the term "abnormal"? We have had no figures for last year or for 1929. We have merely had the figures for this year, which are absolutely meaningless unless they are compared with the figures of previous years. We were informed yesterday that the figures for the first 10 days of November, 1931, were available, but the figures for 1929 and 1930 were not given. Yet the whole justification for the Bill is that for the last few months Great Britain has been subjected to abnormal imports—imports which, if they are abnormal, must be shown to be in excess of the imports for last year and the year before.
If the House is asked to surrender these great powers and these traditional privileges, is it not entitled to ask the President of the Board of Trade to make out his case, and to show where is the crisis? He cannot say the crisis is merely the fact that we desire to maintain the external value of sterling. That is important, but other countries are facing adverse balances as well as Great Britain. That is not the crisis, because this Bill does not deal with that crisis. The crisis, we are told, is that we have to deal with huge, unusual, unprecedented dumping of foreign goods and that these powers are necessary in order to keep them out, and this House of Commons, this overwhelming majority, these defenders of the interests of the British people, these patriots, these monopolisers of the Union Jack, instead of asking for this very necessary information have swallowed their medicine man incantation of the President of the Board of Trade, using the word "crisis," which has served them so well on every platform in the country, and which they can still continue to use in order to close the mouth and dope the intelligence of the House of Commons itself. The case for this Bill has not been made out. The smallness of the numbers of the Labour party may cause the Government to treat the Opposition, if not with contempt, at least with indifference, but surely it is the duty of the House of Commons, if it is asked to give these powers, to see that
the Government does not treat the whole House with the same scorn as it is treating the Opposition. We are entitled to ask for a case to be made out and a ease has not been made.
The Bill has been brought before the House, not for the purpose of dealing with dumping, but for the purpose of dealing with potential rebellion in the Conservative party. It had its origin, not in the increase in British commerce, it finds its inspiration, not in the desire to protect the British working man, but in the megalomania of the "Daily Telegraph" and the "Daily Mail." I, therefore, suggest that, in the course of the further stages of the Bill, we should ask the right hon. Gentleman to do what he has not yet done, and I suggest that he has not done it because he lacks information, because he is one of the best informed intelligences in Great Britain. He did not treat the House of Commons with this contempt because he has not the information. His speeches are usually informed by more facts than most speeches in the House. His handling of statistics is always ready. He is always facile, and this absence of information yesterday and to-day is because he is no longer the economist but the chief medicine man for the National Government. He is here for a purpose. He is the high priest of Free Trade. He is used for this purpose in order to win the support of the Free Traders who still remain in the National Government. It is still necessary to give them something. They have not yet thrown their principles overboard. The right hon. Gentleman is doing for the National Government what the Prime Minister did for the National party. He is a decoy duck. He is put up as the high priest of Free Trade to decoy the innocent Liberals into the Protectionist snare and, once he has accomplished that task, they will no longer require his services, as they will no longer require the Prime Minister's services. Indeed, the Tory party's enthusiasm for him has faded, and their enthusiasm for the right hon. Gentleman will disappear once he has sold the pass. Once he has decoyed them into the snare of Protection, he will no longer be needed and, if he is not elevated above, he will be driven below. The right hon. Gentleman is simply exploiting the old cry of "crisis" and is not making any case.
8.0 p.m.
Let me ask him a further question. If it is a fact—and we will assume it for the sake of discussion—that imports are coming into the country in abnormal quantities, to what is that due? In the first place, it may be due to the fact that foreigners are anxious to put their goods in before a tariff is put on. It is due, therefore, to fiscal uncertainty. One way of removing fiscal uncertainty is to assure them that we do not intend to put tariffs on. We have a most astonishing situation. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) have been going up and down the country for the last three or four months saying the only thing to save Great Britain is tariffs. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are entitled to that view. They are entitled to argue that the conditions of labour that subsist between this country and the rest of the world should be altered in some way by well-advised fiscal machinery. They are entitled to hold that view. We do not quarrel with it. If we were dealing with a Bill this evening in which there was a wide conception, a central plan, an idea behind it, we should be able to discuss it intelligently. There would be a great deal of sympathy in the Labour party for that approach, and for some form of economic planning in which a. change in our fiscal machinery would be an element. There would be considerable support in the working-class movement in this country. It might not go 100 per cent. of the way, but nevertheless intelligent minds would sympathise with the Bill and its intention. But here we are asked to deal with dumping, and the principal cause of the dumping is that they have been talking of tariffs. The very tariff agitation has caused all the dumping; and the tariff itself is the cure for the dumping. We are having a new vaccine doctrine. They are going to put in diphtheria to drive diphtheria out. We are to bring in tariffs to drive tariffs out. That is the suggestion. I submit, therefore, that there is no need at all to come to the House of Commons and ask for these unusual powers. If the dumping is caused by the expectancy of tariffs, it is the right hon. Gentleman's tariff colleagues who have caused that fear. Let him get up and say that there
is no fear of tariffs in this country, that the Government are still sitting on the addled egg of the election and have not yet hatched out any legislative chicks, and do not intend to put on tariffs. That is all that he need do.
But I will abandon that suggestion and assume that other countries are themselves in difficulties and are compelled to send their goods out in increasing volume at the present time because of their own internal difficulties. Therefore, it may be that Poland, France, Germany, and Europe generally are increasing their exports to this country because of their own financial difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman is familiar—much more familiar than I am—with those difficulties. He knows—he mentioned it yesterday in his speech—that as a consequence of the falsification of economic balances and of War debts and Reparations debtor countries have artificially to stimulate their exports, and that that has largely been aggravated by a fall in the world-price level, that the debtor countries are getting into increasing difficulties and have to increase their exports still further to maintain the value of their own currencies. We appreciate that fact. If the excess of imports into this country is due to those facts and we keep out those imports, shall we not have to meet their difficulties in another place? If you stop France, Poland, Germany, Yugoslavia, any of the Balkan States, any of the central European countries, Czechoslovakia, assuming that the excess of exports from those countries is due to their financial difficulties, will their financial difficulties cease when you stop them sending their goods here? You will meet them in another place. You do not take the dent out of a piece of iron merely by hammering the dent; you hit it somewhere else.
It is clear that if you increase the financial and economic difficulties of those countries by stopping them from sending goods here at the moment you are bound to have to face the position through a diminution of the massed volume of purchasing power of those peoples and your exports are bound to suffer. If their difficulties are due to Reparations and to War debts, a tariff in Great Britain will not solve the problem. Those Reparations and War debts should be courageously, realistically and
patriotically tackled. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government, with their vast initiative and their terrific prestige and their overwhelming Parliamentary power, need not fear being said to be unpatriotic or pro-German; they can proceed to take the initiative in European affairs immediately. One of the most interesting, and in some ways ludicrous spectacles we have seen in this House was when the right hon. Gentleman yesterday declared, in his inimitable and pedagogic way, that one of the principal causes of our difficulties was the Peace Treaty, the Reparations. When I ventured to interrupt and say that this was a confessional, I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman, because I admit he was always against them, but to the cheers from around him, from those benches filled with persons who in 1919–20 were organising parties to lynch those of us who were saying in the country what would be the economic consequences. After all, we are entitled, although we are a meagre Opposition, to some ordinary failings and to say, "Well, at least we told you so." We must listen, 10 years afterwards, to speeches regarded as the essence of political wisdom containing the statements we made 10 years ago. I submit therefore that, if the excess of exports from those countries is due to their peculiar financial difficulties, the root cause does not lie in our fiscal machinery, and the remedy does not lie in the alteration of our fiscal policy.
I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the uncertainty will not disappear when he gets those powers. It will be increased. Once the President of the Board of Trade is armed with his powers they will hang like the sword of Damocles over the exchanges of this country. He will have to use the sword at once or else put it back into its sheath. He will either have to exercise all the powers immediately, or say that he does not intend to exercise them at all. His troubles are going to start once he gets those powers. All he will do will be to shift the pressure from the lobbies of the House of Commons to the Carlton Club. All that will happen will be that the Protectionist hordes behind the Government will no longer have to come to the House of Commons and make speeches but will go to their party meet-
ings. He will perhaps hear the echoes and also hear of the casualties that may follow. All those articles will be subject to the veto of the President of the Board of Trade.
If the Bill is to be brought in in order to get rid of uncertainty, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman: How is that uncertainty going to be resolved unless he immediately exercises those powers or says that he does not intend to exercise them? Once the thing is on the Statute Book importers of all kinds will hurry up their imports for fear that it is going to descend upon them. It is not a cure for uncertainty, for commercial neurasthenia; it is neurasthenia itself. It is not going to be a stable foundation for exports and imports. It will not be a strong rope to which we may cling; it will be a rope of sand. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the first effect of his powers will be that all exchanges will be jazzing about. There will be increased imports from abroad. We have to assume—it is the only assumption upon which we can proceed—that he intends to exercise his powers. When the House has given wide powers to a Minister it must criticise those powers on the assumption that they are going to be exercised. It cannot be assumed that they are not going to be exercised. It cannot be allowed to be said that we have to trust the right hon. Gentleman to be discreet because we know that he has no criteria for discretion. Immediately these powers are conferred pressure is going to be placed upon the President of the Board of Trade. The pressure is not going to be Parliamentary pressure, but commercial and business pressure. It is not going to find articulation through the ordinary veins of the Constitution of the country but through Whitehall. I cannot do anything better than quote the language of the right hon. Gentleman himself in a speech which he made on the 22nd June, 1921:
One of the worst features of a tariff system and one which, for my part, I most dread is giving a political aspect to all our business activities. I would look forward with feelings well-nigh of nausea"—
the right hon. Gentleman's stomach is stronger than it was—
if I were compelled to add to the staffs under my control, a staff in the Lobby of the House of Commons"—
He will merely exchange Whitehall for the House of Commons:
Not one of us dare dispense with that new department under a general tariff. We dare not leave our competitors or users of raw material free to Lobby the House of Commons. That new element would poison business life.
The right hon. Gentleman proposes in the Bill that we should provide him with a large number of bottles of poison which he can dispense at leisure while President of the Board of Trade. I submit that it is far better, if the political machinery of this country is to be exposed to business pressure and if we are to be lobbied at all, that the elected representatives of the people should be subject—[An HON. MEMBER: "Instead of the Trades Union Congress!"] If the hon. Member will make a relevant interjection he will add to the clarity of the Debate. If we have our political life exposed to these temptations and pressures, it is desirable that the elected representatives of the people should be exposed to them. Then the balance of interest in this House and the free play of discussion will correct any tendency towards corruption which may exist. To leave the President of the Board of Trade, deeply involved, as he is, in the commercial and economic life of this country—more involved than any other Minister—with those large powers of bribery and corruption and the right to make the fortunes of some businesses and destroy the fortunes of others, to give to the President of the Board of Trade the biggest vested interest we can-possible give to him, would be a great danger. We are to give to him those wide powers. This National Government, and the Prime Minister, with his capacity for moral indignation, standing for the purity of British public life, are going to expose the House of Commons and our Constitution to that sort of thing.
So far as we are concerned on these benches we are not going to expose the Civil Service and public officials to temptation which we ourselves are not prepared to withstand. We do not want the Lobby of the House of Commons and we do not want the office of the President of the Board of Trade to become the centres of appeal from business interests. We prefer to have those matters fought out on the Floor of the House of Commons in a proper manner. We say to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they
have Americanised English elections in this country and they are going to Americanise English politics in this House. They have copied the worst features of American mass suggestion, and now they are to expose our Constitution to all the influences of corruption and degradation of public life with which we are familiar across the Atlantic. I, therefore, ask them to hesitate. Having stampeded public feeling in this country and secured in this House an overwhelming reactionary majority, they are going to corrupt public life in this country and undermine the confidence of our people.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite a few questions. If these powers are to be exercised, does he propose to exercise them in regard to semifinished and finished steel? Does he propose to extend Protection to the steel industry? We should like to know, and the industry would like to know, because blast furnaces cannot be put in hand immediately. It takes three months for them to get into full working order. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to exercise these powers? Is he going to prohibit the importation from France, Luxemburg, Germany and Belgium the importation of steel bars and billets? If so, what is going to happen to the South Wales export coal trade? This, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is a very delicate and complex mechanism. The Government are going to throw a crowbar into that mechanism. Our export of coal to the Continent of Europe to-day is not affected by price competition at all. The volume of coal that we are selling in Europe to-day is not fixed by prices, but by licence. We are no longer selling our coal in Europe because we are able to sell it cheaper than anybody else. We are selling our coal in Europe under licence because those countries are definitely allowing a certain volume of coal to be sold at the bargain counter against Great Britain.
If the right hon. Gentleman restricts in any way the export of steel bars from the Continent, and the French raise an embargo on coal and the Germans use their coal dumps to extend the non-competitive areas in Germany, what answer is he going to make to the South Wales
colliers and the colliers of Scotland, Durham and Northumberland who will be idle? It will do for the South Wales export coal trade on the Continent what the Polish Corridor did for our Scandinavian export trade in coal. We are still suffering from the consequences of that. They gave Dantzig to the Poles. The tariff war between Germany and Poland for seven years stopped the sale of any Polish coal in Eastern Germany, drove Polish coal to Scandinavia and operated against our coal trade. We lost 40 per cent. of our Scandinavian market in consequence. That is one of the consequences of the economic wisdom of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now we are, in effect, told that we are going to interfere with the amount of coal that we can sell in Europe. The fiscal machinery of the Continent has grown up for a century, and during that time we have been able to sell our exports to them. They have not prevented our exports from going in. That represents the Continent's idea of the division of labour which should subsist between this country and the Continent. It is not fiscal war, but control and division of labour.
I submit in all seriousness that if the Government proceed with this tariff legislation they will convince Europe that England is no longer a good European. They will establish in Europe a permanent French hegemony. They will drive Germany into the hands of France. We cannot afford to be regarded by Europe in an unfriendly way. We are not now as necessary to the European division of labour as we formerly were, and any attempt on our part to rupture the economic relationship will have economic and diplomatic consequences for us that will not end by the end of the century. I appeal to the Government to consider this matter in all seriousness. The one asset that we have left is our most highly skilled artisan population, and our chief interest lies in devoting that high skill to the making of high quality products. It does not matter to us if the Continent sends to us raw material, but it does matter to us if we prevent France and Luxemburg from sending us steel; and we drive France into the arms of Germany, with their highly skilled artisan population who will be ready for France to avail herself of. Stop the steel from coming in, but you
do not hear the last of it. You will bring about between France and Germany an organic industrial relationship instead of the existing cartel, in which France will make use of the skilled German workmen to work on the semi-finished steel and we shall meet with the competition where it is most deadly, in the finished engineering market.
Anyone looking round on the whole range of the economic life of this country will admit that the proposals contained in the Bill are highly dangerous. I have listened to arguments from hon. Members, particularly young Liberals and young Conservatives, who are usually the persons to make old-fashioned theories agreeable to modern life. They have stated that we ought to have scientific safeguards and organised production and that we ought to build our economic life behind a line of fiscal barriers. There is nothing of that in the Bill. It is a stupid, ordinary, ignorant, nineteenth century Conservatism that is in the Bill. There is nothing scientific about it. It is merely a question of the Conservative party paying its debts to those who contributed to its election fund. It is a monument of Conservative corruption. It is a case of the Conservatives demanding their price. That is what the proposal is. I would point out to Liberal Members of the Government and to Liberal supporters of the Government that they may pay this price now in order to secure for a few months longer their juxtaposition with the Tories, but that, once the Tories have got what they want, they will be kicked out into the political wilderness and no man will want to know whether they have anything to eat, or drink or wear. They will be forgotten, the Lord President of the Council will have no further use for them, the legend of a National Government will have disappeared, the job will have been done, and Great Britain will be handed over to the most reactionary Conservative Government of modern times, whose name will be anathema throughout the whole country.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very attractive and humorous speech, in which he has poked fun at the President of the Board of Trade and at the Prime Minister and attacked
everything in general and nothing in particular. In the next place, he criticised the President of the Board of Trade because, as he said, the right hon. Gentleman had not made out a case for stopping dumping, and in the next breath said that there was no case to be made. In fact, the hon. Member entirely shirked the issue. The issue today is our adverse overseas balance and its damaging effect upon our credit. He did not deal with that problem at all, and he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech. I am sure that he does not expect us to treat his speech with any great seriousness.
8.30 p.m.
I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Attlee), who opened the Debate for the Opposition. He made the point so often made in an unqualified form by Free Traders, that if you stop imports you will stop exports. Up to a point that is true, but it has to be qualified, and the proof that it must be qualified can be found in what took place during the year 1930. If hon. Members will look at the published figures showing what our overseas balance was then, they will find that we had a credit of £39,000,000. We had an excess of imports which was met by our invisible exports, that is to say, shipping freights, banking commissions, insurance premiums and so on, and the income on our foreign investments, amounting to £235,000,000. But as our net credit balance at the end of that year was only £39,000,000, after all calculations had been made, it shows that we parted with all our invisible exports such as shipping freights and banking commissions and insurance commissions and other services and that they even were not adequate to fill the gap. So we had to fall back upon the greater portion of the £235,000,000 of income on our overseas investments in order to leave us with £39,000,000 as our overseas credit balance. That shows that we imported in excess £106,000,000 which drew no exports at all other than surrendered dividend warrants. That is a fact which was not disclosed until we received the figures of the Board of Trade returns on 26th February this year. It shows that there is a fallacy when Free Traders tell us baldly that imports draw ex-
ports. Yes, but what sort of exports? What is the good to us to export paper dividends. In 1930 we were merely surrendering the right to receive £196,000,000 of overseas dividends, which would otherwise have been at our disposal plus the £39,000,000, to invest in loans abroad to enable us to give credit to people abroad to enable them to buy goods from us. Had we stopped the importation of £196,000,000 worth of selected manufactured goods in the year 1930, out of the total of £1,044,000,000 of imports which we paid for by £196,000,000 in dividend warrants, we should have stopped the export or surrender merely of those dividend warrants and given employment to people in this country in the manufacture of the goods. It would have had the effect of slightly reducing our invisible exports in the shape of shipping freights and banking commissions and insurance commissions but it would have given a year's employment to nearly 1,250,000 people.
The fact of the matter is that this excess of imports is now shown to be paid for in a great degree by nothing else than the paper warrants for interest on investments made in the past, and we therefore can stop a certain amount of selected manufactured imports coming into this country without suffering any loss to our export trade whatever. We can make the goods here, retain ownership of the income due from abroad, which we can re-invest again as loans to customers to enable them to buy our goods and at the same time put people into employment here to manufacture the selected imported goods which are prohibited. What is the problem which the Government have to face? It is this. We have felt, and it has been shown in the position of the exchanges, that there is a growing minus in our overseas balance. We do not know, and I can only conjecture, what that adverse balance will be. But during the last 10 months we have been building up certainly not a plus overseas balance. At the end of the year we shall have a debit oversea balance of something not less than £60,000,000, probably £100,000,000. We are on the wrong side of the hedge. Our credit has suffered and the position has been revealed in the weakness of sterling,
before we can see the actual calculations of the oversea balance.
This Resolution seeks to give power to stop the importation of such an amount of manufactured goods under Class III as may seem proper to the Government. What is the total amount of manufactured goods imported into this country? It is in the neighbourhood of £300,000,000. We need,, not only to cancel or neutralise the minus £60,000,000 or it may be the minus £100,000,000 of our overseas balance by increased exports and decreased import excess, but on the top of that we must set up a credit balance overseas of not less than £150,000,000 a year. During the years 1928 and 1929 our credit annual balance was roughly about £140,000,000. We must have a credit balance overseas large enough to enable our customers and friends abroad to borrow so that they may be able to buy goods from us. We need every year an increased credit balance in our overseas transactions in order to meet the needs of the increase in our population.
We, therefore, have this problem, to cancel the minus £60,000,000 or the minus £100,000,000 of adverse balance overseas and, in addition, to provide a plus balance of £150,000,000 of credit overseas, as we had in past years. That means that we have to fix on methods to readjust a figure of from £210,000,000 to £250,000,000 each year in our overseas transactions. As the total amount of manufactured goods under Class III only comes to £300,000,000, I fail to see how, although I welcome the Bill, we are going to put our adverse balance right by dealing only with articles in Class III. Of course, an increased export trade is also aimed at There is £200,000,000 sterling in the total amount of Class III manufactured goods which well could be made here. But I do not think for a moment that the Bill will operate in such a way as to keep the whole of that £200,000,000 out. I have no means of knowing, but I assume we may under the Bill remedy our adverse balance with the help of Class III to an amount of £70,000,000 to £100,000,000. But, as I said, we need an adjustment to put the oversea position right of something like £210,000,000 to £250,000,000, and in order to get that balance with which to fill the gap we shall have to go in another direction and beyond the methods now being provided.
Much as I welcome this Bill, for I think its principle is right, I want to put it on record that I think we need further legislation for agriculture to produce the amount that I have mentioned, and that we shall not get that required total amount by this Bill alone. We must go further. Whether we can get an overseas credit position depends on an agricultural policy. I cannot deal with that question now, but I think that the policy that we favour will set going such a home production of foodstuffs as will enable us to be free from having to import as part of our total needs something like £100,000,000 to £160,000,000 worth of foodstuffs every year. The method, implicit in this restriction of inv-ports proposal, will, I think, put our adverse balance right only when it is supplemented with an agricultural home production large enough to dispense with buying from abroad food to the total value I have just mentioned.

Mr. McGOVERN: We have just heard from the hon. Gentleman a plea to go the whole hog and to have full-blooded tariffs put into operation in this country. I am inclined to agree that if the policy advocated by the Front Bench is going to be a cure, or a partial cure, of the evil from which society suffers, it will be natural to assume that we must go the whole hog and put full-blooded tariffs into operation. This House is a remark-able institution. We are dealing with an anti-dumping Bill. I have listened to speeches which have amazed me. I am rather perplexed when I begin to deal with politicians and with the various parties in this House. I find, for example, that the men who are in charge of this anti-dumping Bill have throughout their lives said that Free Trade was the be-all and end-all of society. In my younger days I heard many of them waxing eloquent in telling their audiences that Free Trade was the thing that gave this nation and this Empire its position and power and wealth and security and freedom, and that we must fight to the last ditch and never surrender Free Trade. I sec those same people to-day on the Government Front Bench pleading for the thin end of the wedge of Protection. They have changed their policy, and the change has coincided with their arrival on the Front Bench.
On the other hand, I have heard speeches from Members on this side of the House, and have recollected that when they were on the other side they advocated an entirely different policy. It is all to me rather strange. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) told us that Mr. Henderson had advocated tariffs, that he was prepared to go to the length of a 20 per cent. tariff. But a Member of the Front Bench said, "Yes, that was before we went off the Gold Standard." I rather thought it was before the right hon. Gentleman went off the Front. Bench. If people are going to hold so loosely to principles in politics, it is no wonder that our Parliamentary institution is being demoralised and that people have absolutely no respect for it at all.
I have heard it suggested of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) that he would use the Liberals and then throw them aside like sucked oranges. I want to be frank and honest. I do not believe that that is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman at all. I have watched him throughout his public life, from outside this House and from inside, and the view I have always held of the right hon. Gentleman is that he is too honest for politics at all. I do not think that he makes use of people in the way suggested. He has fought all along against every and any system of tariffs in this country. Any person who has watched the Beaverbrook campaign must admit that the right hon. Gentleman throughout his career was a very un-willing advocate of any form of tariff in this country, and was not prepared to put it into operation. But we find the National Government arrived on the Front Bench with an overwhelming majority, and they come to the House and say, "The position is urgent. We require to go ahead. We require to override the ordinary rules of this institution in order to get these tariffs into operation." They put forward this Bill.
As has been suggested, the urgency of the problem became evident only when the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) presented their ultimatum to the Government to go ahead speedily. Anyone who heard the statement of the Prime Minister must admit that he shuffled and evaded with
indefinite statements, and that he had no intention of carrying out a policy of tariffs on this side of Christmas. But a change took place because of a threat of rebellion from inside the party. A threat of rebellion inside the Government party compelled the Front Bench to (move, but the threats of rebellion in the Labour party could never compel the Labour Front Bench to move in that direction at all. We are urged now to go in for a system of anti-dumping. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) made a statement that I dispute entirely, without agreeing or disagreeing with tariffs. He said that in foreign countries the standard of life is much lower than that of this country. It is well known that in America and in every State of Australia—I lived there for a couple of years—the standard of life is very much higher under a system of tariffs than it is in this country. I do not say that that is an argument for or against tariff reform, but we should not attempt to treat Members of this House and the public outside as if they were a class of children who are being instructed in simple elementary truths.
I heard the speech of an hon. Member on the Labour Front Bench and I was inclined to wonder whether he was speaking as a Member of that Front Bench. I began to see a new alignment of forces again—Liberal and Labour forces allying themselves and cheering one another on in the hope that when the change takes place in politics, as it naturally must take place, they might evolve as a happy family on the Treasury Bench to conduct again the game that they have conducted for months in the past. If there is one set of people which has played fast and loose with Parliamentary democracy it is the Liberal section now in the National Government. To me they are people devoid of the ordinary Parliamentary decencies and principles which ought to attach to a party sincerely desirous of the well-being of the State.
They are in charge of the anti-dumping Bill. Let us examine that Bill. What is the reason for dumping? Dumping, I believe, takes place. There is no use closing our eyes to it and trying to make the world believe that dumping does not take place in this and other countries. It
takes place because we are producing faster than the people in any country can consume according to the purchasing power which they receive. In order to get rid of the surplus goods produced, an attempt is made to export them either at cost, or a little over cost, or at something under cost. The home market is exploited and then the remaining goods are unloaded on some other country. But is not that exactly what Liberals and Tories alike have pleaded and argued for in the past? They said that competition was the life of trade, that you had to compete in the open market, and that you ought had to encourage anything in the nature of trusts or combines because they destroyed the ordinary come and go between nations and between firms.
The Government say they want to prevent dumping; they say that this procedure is the cure and that it will prevent dumped goods coming here from Czechoslovakia and Germany and other countries. Let me put this question to the responsible spokesman of the Government. Are they going to include the prohibition of goods coming from India —goods produced under sweated conditions or by slave labour? Are they going to allow goods to come in freely from India although the competition is unfair as between industrial firms in this country and those in India. It is all very well to say that India is part of the Empire. I know it is, but if India can unload coal in Italy for 14s. a ton when it takes, between freight labour and profit, 20s. a ton to send coal there from this country—I am not giving actual figures but I am using this by way of illustration—are you going to encourage cheap slave labour in India, or are you going to encourage raising the standard of life of the people in that country?
I do not think that this anti-dumping Bill is going to do anything. I think it is a great game of bluff by politicians who are compelled to go along the road of the policy which they have advocated to the people of the country. They had an overwhelming majority. They cannot reasonably plead that they are a minority party, or that they have not the mandate or have not the power. They will carry their anti-dumping Bill. They will go further; they will continue the process of going on to a full-blooded tariff system, and they will discover that the last posi-
tion is worse than the first. I have never seen such an exhibition of shadow-boxing in this House as that which has taken place this afternoon. Hon. Members keep on dancing round the subject without ever coming to the stern realities of what is taking place in our industrial life.
We are witnessing the decay of the system of capitalism. Hon. Members opposite may smile, but I have yet to hear of any case being put forward, other than the case for Socialism, as an alternative to the decay, demoralisation and crisis in which the capitalist society at present finds itself. The capitalist system goes on producing poverty in abundance and producing unemployment. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth says that if we had the production of these goods in this country we could find employment for 1,000,000 men. Does any person in his senses believe a story of that kind? It may be all right for a Tariff Reform platform or the Junior Imperial League, in order to get people wagging flags and in order to make them believe that you are going to achieve the salvation of mankind. But you cannot destroy unemployment, and unemployment is bound to grow, so long as your present order continues. There is only one alternative, and that is to add to the purchasing power of the working class. You are looking for fresh markets. The only market that is to be found is the home market. The only people who can consume more goods are the working class. What is your policy?
Your policy is to destroy the purchasing power of the people. You think you are going to find markets elsewhere. There are no markets to be found elsewhere. The markets are being wiped out. If you take from one nation £10,000,000 purchasing power by keeping out goods which they supply to you, then, in the same relation, you destroy their purchasing power to buy back from some other part of the world, from Britain, or Germany, or China. You are destroying their purchasing power or reducing their purchasing power, adding to unemployment and making the position worse. You will, I know, go on with the process. I am not blaming you for attempting to stop dumping, or for attempting to meet the crisis which is upon us. I am not blaming you, but I know that you are bound to fail, because you are making the attempt
in the spirit of the quack. Since 1918 this state of things has continued, and you have tried to make people believe that if they would only entrust power to you, you would find a remedy. The Liberal party, the Tory party, the Labour party, all have applied the same 17th century minds to 19th century and 20th century problems. And all the time things have been going from bad to worse, and then you come along and say that a crisis is upon us. The crisis has been upon us since 1918. You have had as high as 3,500,000 unemployed, and you have had as low as 1,250,000 unemployed. It has gone from one position to another. Not only this country but every country in the world, whether Protectionist or Free Trade, is suffering from unemployment.
I am not enamoured of your system of tariffs or of your system of Free Trade. I believe that in a well-regulated well ordered state of society there might be, if you were moving according to the needs of the times, a kind of halfway house between the two, and a way out of all this trouble that is now taking place. You might increase the purchasing power of the masses, decrease the hours of the working class, and by a system of import boards, regulate imports so as to see that no goods came into the country which have been made under sweated or slave conditions. I hear from time to time oratory in this House about slave labour in Russia, but there is slave labour in every part of the world. There is slave labour in Britain at the present moment. You cannot in any shape or form find a way out of the present morass by applying these remedies. What you are saying is, "Here is a bottle. Take a couple of spoonfuls and rub your back with the bottle, and all will be well." Every man, every politician on the Government bench at the moment has sat on it as an individual party or unit, and now they are sitting there collectively, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, you have all attempted it individually and. now you go collectively and say, "That which we failed to do individually we will now apply a collective mind to, and all pull at the cat's tail in an attempt to find a way out." I have no faith in any one of you. Not a single party in this House have I faith in for a solution of these problems. I want to see a greater adhesion to prin-
ciple than I have seen yet in this House. Not a single party has put principle first. They are all anxious to keep sitting on that bench, whether it means the sacrifice of principle or not, and they think they are going to masquerade in that disguise and keep the people outside continually in subjection.
You are on your last trial. Make no mistake about it. They have tried you all individually, and now they are trying you collectively, and the fall will be great when it comes; and I am confident that the fall will come and probably sooner than many of you expect, but you are going on with that order of society, producing poverty, adding to the glut in every country, and every country has the same old problems. In the Reichstag in Germany the hoary-headed politicians are saying, "What we have to do is to stop dumping." The politicians in Sweden are saying, "We have to prevent imports from coming in and to develop our exports." The people in New South Wales are the same. I have heard the same old story in their Parliament. They are all looking for the other fellow to take their exports, and they are not going to take any imports in return. It is the most stupid and fanatical policy I have ever heard of.
I only want to say, in conclusion, that I simply got up to express my disgust and contempt for this game of hide and seek that is being played in this House. You are not realists at all, but simply an army of living dead men who fail to realise the progress that is being made outside. The mind of man develops, and the only thing in the universe that is constant is change, but the only change in this House is to move from these benches across the way, and the struggle goes on between one set of politicians and the other. When one set are in power they stand for a certain policy, and the other party condemn everything they do while they are in power. Then when they cross over the people on those benches carry out the policy advocated by the others, who then condemn it from this side. That is what goes on—no realities, no honesty, no principle—simply meeting and talking, and talking, and talking eternally, never intending to do anything, because you cannot do anything, to cure the poverty. The system
will come down on you eventually like an avalanche and sweep you out of existence.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I have sat here all the evening listening to the Debate, and practically all the speakers have been speaking in general terms about these Orders-in-Council. I am going to endeavour to bring the President of the Board of Trade or his Parliamentary Secretary back to realities. I have been very alarmed at these Orders-in-Council. I am speaking on behalf of one of the greatest industries in the country, namely, the iron and steel industry, and I understand that semi-raw materials and raw materials are to be brought under these Orders-in-Council. I want, first of all, to point out that if the President of the Board of Trade begins with pig iron, that is the finished article of the blast furnaces but the raw material to the steel furnaces, producing basic or Bessemer steel. The steel bars that are imported into this country are the finished article in the steelworks, but they are the raw material of the tinplate trade and the galvanised sheet trade of this country. I also want to point out that, although the tinplate and the sheet are the finished articles in the tinplate and the sheet trades, they are the raw materials for the canning industry in this country, and also for the motoring industry and other industries that use this finished article.
Has the President of the Board of Trade considered what effect the taxing of imports into this country will have on the re-rolling trades and the finishing trades in the iron and steel trade? If he will look up the records of the steel trade and the tinplate trade and the galvanizing trade, which is our staple industry in South Wales, he will find—I am very pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, who is a business man, has now come back into the House. I was just pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman, as a business man—and some of his speeches in reference to the steel and the sheet trade have already been quoted against him to-night—that if he will look up the statistics at the Board of Trade, he will discover that the steel trade since the big slump of 1920 has been declining year after year until now
the steel trade in this country is in a worse position than it has ever known before.
The second point that I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman is that, if he will look up the statistics, he will find that the steel trade and the tinplate trade and the sheet trade have been improving year after year until, in 1929, we produced more tinplates and sheets in South Wales and exported more tinplate6 and sheets than we have done since the McKinley tariff was imposed in 1891. In regard to what you call dumping of these raw materials that we use in the tinplate trade and in the sheet trade, I want the right hon. Gentleman to find out, before he puts these Orders into operation, whether it is going to be an advantage to the steel, tinplate, and sheet trades combined or whether it is going to be a disadvantage. I guarantee that the President of the Board of Trade will find that if he imposes a tax in any way on these raw materials, it will be a disadvantage in the end. It will bolster up the inefficiency which exists in the steel industry of this country, and in bolstering up inefficiency it will tax the people. The consumers, therefore, will suffer as a result of the foolish thing which the Government are doing.
I want to follow up another point by an illustration. Belgium and French steel is being imported into South Wales today at something like £3 a ton. We cannot produce it in South Wales under £5 a ton, and we cannot compete against this imported steel any way. The cost in wages of producing a ton of steel from the gas producer to the finished bar is something like 10s. a ton. Therefore, if the members of my organisation went to the steel works to-morrow and offered to work for nothing, the steel works would still be 30s. a ton at a disadvantage as compared with Belgium and Northern France. Therefore it is not a question of wages or a question of sweated conditions; the manufacturers in the other countries have some greater advantage than we have in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said that he had been alarmed at the lack of initiative on the part of different Governments in this country over the last seven years in not taking this matter in hand. Those who
understand the trade, the employers and the representatives of the men, have been discussing it for 10 years. We have approached Governments, we have approached the Lord President of the Council, and the Labour Government; and I think that the President of the Board of Trade was present with the economic committee of the Liberal party when we discussed it with them. We have also placed our proposals before the public.
We have constructive proposals in order to deal with this industry. We want a national planning of the industry on the regional lines suggested and recommended by the Sankey Commission. We want to establish an import board and an export board. We want business men to do that; we do not want the House of Commons to do it or to bring politics into it at all. We want to do it in the national interest. We want the business people who would compose these boards to regulate the output and to decide what goods should be imported, and what use should be made of them. Such import and export boards would do far more effective work than Orders in Council. The President of the Board of Trade said last night that he did not blame so much the people who imported the goods into this country as the people who bought the goods in this country. I agree with him, because I brought that matter before the Conciliation Board in South Wales. I am not going to make a debating point of this; it is too serious a matter. I am here to deal with it in a conciliatory spirit as if I were in the Conciliation Board. When I go to the Conciliation Board, I go there with the interests of my men at heart, and I know that the employers go there with the interests of their side at heart, but we always have the trade first in mind, because if the trade were lost, employers and workmen would not be a bit of good. It is, therefore, from that point of view that I want to bring this question before the Minister.
I remember going to the Conciliation Board in Swansea when the late Sir J. C. Davis, who was one of the finest employers this country has produced, and was the leader of Messrs. Baldwin and Company, produced statistics before me as chairman of the men's side. The
statistics showed the number of steel bars that had been imported into this country, the amount of coal that could be used in producing this steel, the number of miners that could be employed, and so on. I listened to him very attentively, and when I replied, I put this question to him: "What have you been doing to stop this steel coming in?" He said: "We have been doing nothing." I said: "The only thing you have been doing is buying it. If you wanted to stop it, you could have prevented this steel from coming in by refusing to buy it. You do not want me to go back to Parliament to ask for an anti-dumping Bill or for a tariff. If you are patriots, and you profess to be patriots, do not buy the steel that is sent into this country."
As sure as I am standing here to-night, there are going to be hundreds of business men in the tin-plate, steel and sheet trade ruined as a result of this, and I ask the Government to adopt the policy of the Confederation. It has been adopted in public by our own people and by the Labour party, and considered favourably by the Liberal party, but the Tory tariffists will not discuss the question at all. I hope that the President will read to-morrow the points that I have put before him. The policy of the Confederation holds the field at the present time. We want an import board and an export board; to take the question out of the hands of Parliament altogether; and to carry out our scheme, not in the interests of the men or of the employers, but in the national interest. It would be far better than any Orders-in-Council that the President of the Board of Trade will try to thrust down the throats of this House.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The hon. Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. T. Griffiths) has been the first speaker from the opposite benches in this Debate to make any constructive suggestion. He has told us of the particular modification he would make in the Free Trade system, but, of course, we are not at liberty to discuss import and export boards at this moment, when we are concerned with a very particular problem. The hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) spoke in a mood of complete terror. He was in terror of a
Constitutional revolution. I was rather surprised that any complaint of a breach of the Constitution should come from that quarter, when one remembers the record of the late Government in regard to the Finance Bill of last session, and still more so when one recalls the whole series of speeches and articles complaining of the cumbrous mechanism of Parliament. Here, at any rate, we are having firm and resolute action for the first time in the last two years. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that action was inconsistent with democracy, that all that was required by democracy was that everything should be discussed at interminable length. Of course, our conception of democracy is identical with the conception of Sir William Anson, from whose learned book an extract was read out, namely, that democracy has the right to delegate its powers if it thinks proper, and really I fail to see the ground of the complaint of my hon. Friend.
Here we are in this House discussing what we shall do, and nothing can be done without the approval of this House. He said we were adopting this procedure because we were afraid to have these taxes discussed in Parliament, but the truth of the matter is that every one of these taxes will be discussed in Parliament, because it will be the duty of the Government to move a positive resolution approving of any Orders that may be made. Therefore, on constitutional grounds I do not think the complaint holds very much water, and, if it had held very much water, doubtless we should have had a speech from the ex-Solicitor-General, who has remained very silent throughout this great Constitutional discussion. The other fear expressed by the hon. Gentleman was also a fear of revolution, a fear of a fiscal revolution, which he thought should not take place within so short a space of time. He thought 2½ days was too short a period in which to effect a fiscal revolution. As a matter of fact, we are not making any permanent change in the fiscal system of the country by this Bill, which operates for only six months. In that respect also, therefore, my hon. Friend's attack was based upon a misapprehension.
We had another speech from the Front Bench opposite. It was very significant and very pleasing to find that the hon.
Member for Limehouse and the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) should both speak from the same bench. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke made a very good Free Trade speech. He expressed charmingly and effectively his undying belief in the most rigid form of Free Trade, a form that is no longer believed in by the most ardent Free Traders. He even told us he would do nothing to protect this country against dumping; but the best Free Trade authorities have always been in favour of protecting this country against dumping. He said, for instance, that vacuum cleaners do not come here unless somebody wants them, and his whole attitude towards imports was "The more the merrier." That is not the attitude of the most convinced and traditional Free Traders. It is not the attitude of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose absence at this moment we so genuinely deplore. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a plea in this House last Session in which he said:
I hope that the Minister will look further into the question of dumping. I have always been against dumping. I do not consider, as I have said here before, that Free Trade is bound to carry that monster on its back.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask what was the definition of dumping?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I wilt read it with pleasure, but I would first ask what becomes of the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend that vacuum cleaners do not come here unless somebody wants them. He wishes me to read the definition of dumping. The right hon. Gentleman said:
By dumping I do not mean legitimate competition, as far as food is concerned, when the foreigner comes here and fights a fair fight in the market. What I mean by dumping is this: Where there is a surplus, the producer first of all sells in his home market at a price which enables him to make a profit under the shelter of a protective tariff, and then dumps the surplus here at a price which is under the cost price to himself.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If any of the goods abnormally coming into this country fulfil that definition, they will be kept out
of this country in the future. To that extent my hon. and gallant Friend should be satisfied. We are not discussing here the abstract merits of Free Trade and Protection, we are not dealing here with normal trade, but with abnormal trade. When we come to discuss normal trade the arguments of my hon, and and gallant Friend will have very much validity, and will have to be met in all seriousness. We are dealing here with a very special problem, a problem which he admits. Imports are coming into this country in abnormal quantities. Are we going to do nothing to defend ourselves from a position such as that? For instance, should woollen travelling rugs be coming into this country at the rate of 53,000 a month when in 1929 they were coming in at the rate of only 5,000 a month? No one is going to be any worse off, and the cost of living will not be increased, if these travelling rugs happen to be restricted. There are a number of other articles in the same category, which do not interfere with the cost of living at all, which are coming in here in abnormal quantities. Supposing the poor unfortunate people who make travelling rugs in this country are put out of work as a result of those importations. Then the taxpayer in this country has to keep them. Why should he? You are not dealing with the system of laissez faire in so far as maintaining your own unemployed by your own industries is concerned.
Therefore, I say, we are not dealing with the ordinary Free Trade system at all, not dealing with the normal trading system, but dealing with something that is entirely abnormal. From whatever angle we look at the figures of recent imports we come to the conclusion that a dead set is being made against this country in anticipation of a permanent change in the fiscal system. Whether that change is to come or not, we must shelter our own traders and our own currency in the meantime, and (here is the explanation of this Bill, which operates for only six months. I have here a letter from a German firm which says:
We beg to enclose you herewith special quotation for the goods we have in stock, for immediate delivery, as we want to clear the stock before the new tariff comes into force.
That is why we are having abnormal imports, and why we are seeking powers
to deal with them. Those were the only two speeches in serious criticism of this Bill and both of them were based upon antiquated notions.
We had a very rousing speech, as we might well expect, from the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) in encouragement of the action we are taking. He was not permitted to deal with all the matters he had in mind, but he asked a question: "What about preferences for the Dominions?" I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend will have need to complain, when he sees the Bill, of the treatment which has been meted out to the Dominions. They are to have a preference. If he wants to know what the figure is, it happens to be a preference of 100 per cent. I do not think he will have any complaint on that score. We are dealing here with an emergency and with an abnormal position. When this House first met we had a very inspiring and eloquent speech from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address in reply to the King's Speech in which he said he hoped that in this Parliament the new spirit of this century would become for the first time visible. I think it has become visible in this Bill. We intend to act and to act resolutely. I am proud to be serving at the Board of Trade under a right hon. Gentleman who understands this subject of trade and industry better almost than any other living man. He is moreover a man of broad mind and a man of great resolution.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "provided," to insert the words:
and duties at present imposed or to be imposed by any Act of the present Session to give effect to this Resolution may be remitted.
The Committee will recognise that the Amendment I am moving is divided into two parts, namely, those duties which are already in existence and those duties which may be put into force under this Resolution. When the President of the Board of Trade was introducing this proposal, I was not quite clear about the position, but I think he said that as far as the new duties were concerned they could be amended within the six
months for which they were being imposed. If that is so, that part of my Amendment falls to the ground, but I am exceedingly anxious in an emergency Measure of this kind that nothing should be done which could be in any way derogatory to the tariff system which, I hope, will be imposed quickly and effectively, and that if there should be some mistake made, the President of the Board of Trade should have the opportunity, immediately the mistake is found, to rectify it during the six months in which these duties are in operation.
9.30 p.m.
I am emboldened to make this suggestion for the reason that there are on our Statute Book at present a number of duties known as the Silk Duties, and there have been several mistakes made which have done very great injury to the silk industry, which happens to be such an important industry in my own constituency. By this Amendment I want to secure the removal altogether, and as quickly as possible, of the raw material duties, which never ought to have been put on. By this Amendment I am attempting to call attention to these duties because when they were put on there was a protective flavour in favour of the home producer. The price of raw silk was 22s. a pound and the duty was 3s. There was a duty on fully manufactured articles of 33⅓ per cent., but since then the price of raw silk has fallen from 22s. to l1s. and there is a duty of 28 per cent. at the present time on the raw silk sold to the manufacturer. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was introducing his Budget at that time there was a protective flavour in regard to these duties and what he called a compensation for the inconvenience that was being suffered, but that compensation has disappeared altogether.
The trade at present is in a most parlous state, for foreign goods are being dumped into the country. I do not know whether there is going to be a tax imposed on Saturday or not, but I do plead that the real way to put the industry right is the removal of the raw material tax, which never ought to have been put on. It only brings in £200,000 a year altogether, and the object I have in
moving this Amendment is to plead for the silk industry in Macclesfield where literally thousands of people are out of work, so that by this simple method they can be put back into a state of happiness and prosperity. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter carefully and see if by a surtax, or by removing the raw material tax— and the removal of the raw material tax is the best way of doing it—he can put matters right. The removal of the raw material tax would be best, because when exports go to Canada, Canada does not Charge them with the price at which they sell to Canada, but charges the duty on the price at which the goods are sold in this country. The whole of our export trade to Canada, instead of having to pay a duty of 60 per cent., is having to pay 90 per cent. This great industry which went to the United States 40 years ago from my constituency and which has come to be the largest textile industry in the United States, employs more than 750,000 men. There is a great opportunity for securing employment in our own country, especially when we realise that 80 per cent. of the silk goods used in this country are imported from foreign countries. Therefore, I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter. I should like him to give me an assurance as to whether, from the point of view of the new taxes, he has power to deal with these matters during their imposition in the next six months.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The object of my hon. Friend is to appeal to us to make sure that when an Order has been issued it may be varied or revoked before the end of the six months' period, if it should be seen from experience to have been a mistaken Order. I can assure him on that at once, for we are taking power at the end of Clause 1 to provide that an Order so made may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order made in a like manner and subject to like conditions. It will, therefore, be possible under the powers given to do exactly what he wishes. With regard to the other aspect of the Silk Duty which he has in mind, and to which he invites my attention, I can tell him at once that I shall be glad to convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the views he has expressed, but I do not think it would come within the
purview of this Bill, and it certainly would not fit in with the general scheme to deal with it under this Bill. The duties he has in mind are Budgetary duties, and they should come under consideration in March and April and not during the discussion of this Bill. I shall be very glad to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the hon. Member's views are, and I have no doubt the hon. Member will take other opportunities for driving them home.

Mr. REMER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in line 10, after the word "quantities", to insert the words:
regard being had not only to the volume of imports but to the total consumption at home and abroad.
I am submitting the Amendment not so much because I attach very great importance to the actual wording, but because I am anxious to secure from the President of the Board of Trade a somewhat fuller definition of what is intended by the word "abnormal" than we have had so far. Before asking the question which I wish to put on this point, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions regarding the actual scope of the Resolution. The Resolution is confined to articles which come under Class III of the import and export list, and therefore presumably excludes articles under Class V. It is not quite clear whether, after he has issued the Order-in-Council, the articles in respect of which he issues such an Order will still be supposed to be non-dutiable articles under the definition of Class V. If they still remain non-dutiable articles under the present definition, and if that excludes them from any action to be taken afterwards, it is possible that a large volume of those articles in regard to which forestalling is dangerous to this country may be sent in by parcels post. I think it would be better for the President of the Board of Trade to make it clear whether this Motion will enable him when he issues an Order to impose the duty upon articles not previously dutiable, but coming in through the parcels post.
My other question is in regard to the scope of the Motion concerning certain
articles in Class I. The object of the Motion is to exclude manufactured articles. The President of the Board of Trade told us yesterday that it was not his intention to deal with agriculture, and he intimated that agricultural products were not of a kind which lent themselves to dumping or forestalling. No doubt the question of agriculture will have to be dealt with separately, though it ought to be dealt with urgently. I am not pressing the right hon. Gentleman to deal with it in this Motion, but I wish to ascertain what is the position of those articles, which are manufactured articles, although they are manufactures under Class 1. There is a very large class of articles that certainly lend themselves to dumping or forestalling which will very likely be sent into this country in large quantities in anticipation of a tariff, and the accumulation of those articles in this country in the shape, for instance, of canned vegetables and bottled vegetables might indirectly prejudice the farmers in the coming season. I want to know: Is there any reason why those articles should not be subject to an Order-in-Council? Would not the limitation of those imports be very desirable in the interests of maintaining the balance of trade?
From those questions I wish to pass on to the question of what is the test of abnormality. We might very well say, and say with profound reason, that the whole state of the trade of this country during the last few years has been thoroughly abnormal. In an industrial country like ours, relying on manufacturing industries, to allow anything like the volume of importation of manufactured articles which is taking place is an abnormal and unhealthy state of things arising out of abnormal and unhealthy conditions. We have to remember the abnormal taxation which British industry bears at the present time. If that were the test many of us would welcome it. In that case we should say: Why not resort to that procedure and introduce an emergency tariff at once? On the other hand, if that is not the line taken, it is important to say whether abnormality is based on a comparison with last year or with a period of years, and whether it takes into account volumes and values,
and not merely the volume of importation but how far it is normal relative to the state of the country, to the total production of the country, the total consumption, and to what would be regarded as normal in the world outside.
I gave an instance yesterday which I should like to repeat. For the first time this year the actual importation of iron and steel from all countries was just under 2,000,000 tons. That is about the same amount as the importation in 1925, and it is a shade less—100,000 tons—than the average importation of the last two years. If the test of normality is simply the test of imports, there would not appear to be anything very abnormal about that state of things; but if we consider the very much lower volume of production of the present year compared with 1925 the ratio of importation to total production is alarmingly abnormal. In the first year which I mentioned, that is 1925, even then our importations amounted to 2,000,000 and our exports to 2,750,000 tons. There was a very large surplus over and above what our industries produced for the requirements of the home market. In the first nine months of that year our exports were 550,000 tons short of our imports. The result is that the figures of imports of iron and steel in the present year show an acutely abnormal position. What I am anxious to get from the President of the Board of Trade is some assurance that, in taking this test of what is abnormal, he will include not merely a statistical comparison of this year's imports, or a particular month, with the imports of the previous year, but he will consider all the imports relative to the whole position of the industries in question. Those questions are the ones to which I am most anxious to get an answer from the President of the Board of Trade, and I will reserve till later anything else that I might wish to say in connection with this Resolution—a Resolution which, while some of us might prefer a somewhat different line of action, we still welcome as clear evidence of a purpose to act now and of more to come in the near future.

Sir. BASIL PETO: The speech which has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) in support of his Amendment, and
the object of which is research into the methods which will be employed in carrying out this Resolution, gives me the opportunity of saying what I want to say to the Committee. The terms of the Resolution would appear to be extremely wide. It gives very wide powers to the President of the Board of Trade. Exception has been taken from the benches opposite to entrusting such large powers to any one Ministry, but, when we consider the speech of the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, and still more the very short speech that he made in introducing this Resolution to-day, I cannot help being afraid that he is looking at the question which has to be dealt with, not from a wide point of view, but from an exceedingly narrow point of view. There is an old proverb that it is not a good thing to look a gift horse in the mouth, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that we are very pleased to see this sign of resolution on the part of the Government in dealing with a part, at any rate, of a problem to deal with which they were undoubtedly returned to power. But I cannot help feeling that, if the administration of the Bill which is to be founded upon this Resolution is going to be confined to such matters as the actual forestalling which is shown by the Board of Trade figures for the last month, and still more for the first 10 days of November, our action will be based upon such narrow grounds that it cannot possibly be satisfactory.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has pressed the President of the Board of Trade for some definition of what he means by "abnormal." In a moment or two I am going to give three examples from the actual Class III figures for October and the first 10 months of this year, and to put it to the President of the Board of Trade whether in these three cases the importation would in his view be abnormal or not. The right hon. Gentleman indicated yesterday that the amount of forestalling and increased importation ranged from a small percentage up to, in some cases, 100 per cent., and the Parliamentary Secretary gave us an example just now in which it was far above 100 per cent.— that of the woollen shawls, where it was something like five times as much as the
normal. What is going to be the right hon. Gentleman's definition? If it is to be a question of percentages, what would be the effect of considering any percentage?
Suppose that he decided—I do not know whether this is the way his mind would work—that a 50 per cent. increase in imports constituted abnormality. Then a duty would be imposed, and it cannot, in the nature of the case, be a small revenue duty calculated to allow the imports to come in so that the revenue could be collected; it must be a high duty, which is going to keep out a very large proportion of those imports. Taking the figure of 50 per cent., suppose that something gets over that percentage, and has a duty of, perhaps, 50 per cent. ad valorem imposed upon it. Then suppose that in the case of another analogous item in this long and complicated Class III the increase is only 30 or 40 per cent. No duty will be imposed there, but there will be a duty of 50 per cent. in the other case. The result of building up any kind of tariff on those lines would be a tariff of shreds and patches with perhaps a purpose to be served, but built up on no plan, perfectly haphazard, and calculated, I think, to do great injustice in many cases, because many people will be disappointed who, according to the other tests, some of which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, are quite as much entitled at present to this measure of Protection as those who are suffering from what the President of the Board of Trade would consider to be abnormal importation.
What would be the effect of that on prices? Surely it would give the Home Secretary the opportunity of saying, "See what is the result of this first experiment in Protection, this first departure, from Free Trade. You have constructed a tariff which is doing the maximum of harm and doing very little good to anyone, and it only shows how wrong you were ever to deviate from the straight path of Free Trade." We do not, therefore, want that, and I venture to think that as the basis of any tariff, even this emergency tariff, the state of industry and the state of employment in this country ought to be considered, and that that should guide the action taken, and not fortuitous circumstances which de-
pend upon the enterprise of certain foreign exporters to this country, the amount of credit they can get to finance their exports, and matters of that kind. In one case, in which, owing to the push of over-production in some particular line in some foreign countries, you have this abnormal importation at the moment, you are going to take action, while in a great number of other cases you are going to take no action at all, although employment in this country may be far more seriously affected.
Here are the three cases that I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade. Taking Group H—Manufactures of Wood and Timber—and looking at the value figures for the month of October for furniture and cabinet work, one finds that the imports of furniture and cabinet ware in 1931 are just a trifle less for the month than the imports in 1930, and that for the first 10 months there is also a slight diminution, of about 10 per cent. On that basis it might be said that the furniture trade was not suffering from any abnormal foreign competition, and that there was no need for dealing with it in any way. Let me give the Committee the facts. During the years 1906 to 1913—the seven years before the War —the importations of foreign furniture were under £500,000 a year, namely, £463,000. During the years 1928 to 1930 —the last three completed years—the importations of foreign furniture were exactly double, namely, £980,000; and, while unemployment in the furniture trades in the earlier period that I have mentioned was 5 per cent., the latest figure is 18.7 per cent. On those tests, which I think are the real tests, there is abnormal importation, and there is nothing in these figures for October and for the 10 months that shows anything abnormal but quite the reverse. If I had not called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact he would probably, in having these figures prepared for him, never have thought that the furniture trade was suffering from any excessive importation at all.
I take next another group—wearing apparel. There I find for October, taking the principal item, which is women's and girls' woven fabrics, dresses, coats and skirts and the like, the importation was
down for October from £303,000 in 1930 to £243,000, but for the 10 months, on the other hand, the importation is up to a certain extent, from £2,700,000 to £2,800,000, not a great increase, but a slight increase. There a wholly different question comes in. Wearing apparel and the clothing trade is one of those things that are regulated by the Trade Boards Act. I have looked it up to refresh my memory and be sure that I was right and I find that ready made, wholesale, bespoke tailoring, and any other branch of tailoring, is the first thing in the Schedule that those special rates of wage regulations were applied to. Is not that a factor that the President of the Board of Trade ought to take into account? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) two days ago referred to wearing apparel from abroad and said he had seen overcoats at 8s. l1d. and trousers at 1s. l0d. each, obviously not produced at Trade Board rates of wages. Therefore, you cannot look merely at the figures of imports but, where the imports are up, as they are, running to nearly £3,000,000 for the 10 months at these very low prices of this sweated apparel from abroad, you have to consider the Trade Board wages, and what is the effect of this House saying that no one shall be employed in the clothing trade unless he is paid a fair rate of wage and at the same time allowing these products of foreign sweated labour to come in without any duty whatever? Surely that is a factor.
10.0 p.m.
Let me give the Committee another example which has recently been brought to my notice. Only 10 years ago in my own constituency, in the little town of Bideford, we had three thriving factories manufacturing collars. There is now one factory at work employing only 120 hands at about half time. Ten years ago over 1,000 women and girls were employed in the three factories. I had a sample sent me the other day of quite a decent looking collar—[Interruption.] No, I will not put it on, I have a better one on. But I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look at this. These collars are offered in this country at 2s. l1d. per dozen. The collar has been submitted to Manchester and the Manchester people say that the material as supplied to the manufacturer would cost two shillings
and the labour, at the compulsory Trade Board rates,, would cost 1s. 6d. That is 3s. 6d. before you touch the question of the value of machinery, motive power, fuel, rent, rates, transport and the profit, if any, of the manufacturer. I am told that the lowest manufacturing cost, if they were made in this country of material muanufactured in this country, employing labour at Trade Board rates, would be just upon 5s. a dozen. In that case there are clearly other factors which you do not get from merely looking at these figures and you have a wrong basis of action altogether if you have the very narrow basis of action which seems to be indicated in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
The last case I want to give is leather and fabric gloves. The figures show that for October, in leather and fur gloves, the imports are nearly three times what they were in October the year before, and in fabric gloves they are just upon three times—22,000 dozen has increased to 56,000—and in value the leather gloves have gone up from £700,000 in round figures to £l,700,000 for the 10 months and fabric gloves have gone up from £402,000 to £781,000, just upon double. These figures are clearly abnormal imports. The President of the Board of Trade might say that under this provision limited for six months we shall give them some measure of Protection, but is that the course that we really ought to adopt? The industry has been twice subjected to Safeguarding Duties. Twice the manufacturers have been encouraged to lay down new machinery, take on new apprentices, and so on. Twice women and girls have been brought into the industry and thrown out on to the streets again without any employment at all. Only as lately as 21st December last a thriving and prosperous industry was practically ruined by the fanatical Free Trade theories of Viscount Snowden. What kind of encouragement would it have been to the industry for the right hon. Gentleman to say: "At any rate, I will give you some security of a Duty of some amount or another for six months." They have had duties put on for five years at a time and taken off and half the people employed thrown out of work every time that hon. Members opposite had a chance to have their fingers in the pie, and now again what would it be, to say that for six months this industry
shall have some security. I cannot understand why the industries which have had Safeguarding applied to them—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Baronet that the question of tariffs cannot possibly arise on this Amendment.

Sir B. PETO: I thank you, Captain Bourne. I had just concluded my remarks. I have very little more to say, and I think that it will not infringe upon your Ruling. The procedure in the case of the safeguarded industries is not, I think, appropriate. They ought to have been dealt with otherwise than by Order. At any rate, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, as far as those industries are concerned, will remember that they were given a measure of protection which has been removed, and that therefore they merit very special consideration on his part, so that they may not be left in a state of insecurity if he can help it.

Mr. HARRIS: Before the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade replies, I should like to support the very valuable speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). The House of Commons is entitled, before it gives these very large powers to the right hon. Gentleman, to know exactly what is meant by "abnormal." There may be conditions, some of which may be broad and some narrow, some meticulous and merely dealing with one aspect of the position, and, on the other hand, as the right hon. Member pointed out, conditions covering a very much wider field. What I understand, and what the House generally understands, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has in view is the very common habit of anticipating possible tariffs by rushing in goods so as to avoid the proposed new duties. We saw that when the Safeguarding Duties were instituted. A few weeks beforehand quantities of goods poured into the Port of London in order to escape those duties. That is commonly called forestalling. Apparently, intelligent importers of foreign goods are better informed than Members of this House. We do not know what goods will be taxed. We are in the dark and everything is shrouded in mystery. I understood that before the election, the proposed duties were largely to be limited to so-called luxuries. What
are luxuries? How are luxuries to be defined? [Interruption.] I am able to support a 100 per cent. duty in order to forestall the dumping of quantities of champagne. I am quite willing to support prohibitive duties on silks and furbelows, ladies' luxuries, ladies' millinery, which they would, no doubt, gladly sacrifice in order to help the nation out of its difficulties. At any rate, I think we are entitled to information.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) referred to two very important industries in which I have a personal interest, because they are both industries which are suffering very much in my district. There is the wood and furniture category and also the ready-made clothing. If there is to be this kind of duty, my constituents are as much entitled to have the advantage of it as any of the more prosperous industries. If the West of England, which is comparatively prosperous and has very little unemployment is to have duties, obviously those in my constituency are equally entitled to have them. But those things do not come into the category of normal importations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly right. Apparently in the Board of Trade figures there is no specially abnormal importation of furniture—[Interruption.] —Not that I am wedded to the theory, but if there is going to be a struggle for spoils, yes. If we are going to depart from sound principles and give up Free Trade, it will be everybody for himself and the Devil take the hindmost. It is the logical result.
In the meantime, it is hardly a question of policy. What we want to know is, what is meant by the word "abnormal"? Does it mean merely anticipating possible duties undefined, un-described and yet to be stated, or does it mean merely imports that have increased in one particular industry, partly because of reparations, perhaps, or owing to depressed trade in one particular country? Before we embark upon this new policy and before the House of Commons hands over those drastic powers to a trusted, able, competent but still a human Minister, we ought to be quite sure what he is going to do. We ought to be clearly advised and warned as to what he means by the word "abnormal" so that the supporters
of Tariff Reform or Protection may not be led up the garden path and sold a pup, or, alternatively, so that Free Traders may not be blindfolded and led up the road unconscious of what the Government really mean. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend who has just sat down is, obviously, in serious difficulties. I can quite understand his feeling of embarrassment. His principles were taking him one way and the interests of his constituents were leading him another way. I cannot say which was the pup and which was the garden path. He was a little confused, if I may say so.

Mr. HARRIS: I am still a Free Trader. I am opposed to all duties, but if there is to be a struggle, naturally my constituents will want to have their share.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not wish to say anything to embarrass my hon. Friend in the services which he renders to his constituents, but I must say that I feel a little less apprehensive now of his criticism. When he taunted me on the ground of high principle, I felt my conscience much disturbed, but when he taunted me about the interests of his constituents, I felt that I must take a broader view of the position and go outside the confines of Bethnal Green to the nation as a whole. My hon. Friend has emphasised the inquiry which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who wanted a definition of what is meant by "abnormal." I am afraid I do not know that there is any precise definition of what is meant by "abnormal." If I may say so, the word was chosen with great discretion. It was not intended to tie down the Board of Trade to complicated mathematical calculations such as were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook. As he went through all the relative measurements to be calculated before we put our procedure into operation, I felt that we should require at the Board of Trade a mathematician who would be able to say what the percentage should be when he considered the relative proportion of those imports to our total British trade. We were to
consider their relative importance in proportion to their volume as well as to their value, we were to bear in mind the past year's imports—how many past years he did not definitely say—and we were also to bear in mind, as he has said, the total consumption at home and abroad. If you are not going to trust the Board of Trade with the powers which come under that very simple word "abnormal," but are going to impose on the Board of Trade measurements which are to be calculated in this complicated way, I think that you may as well abandon the Bill altogether. You cannot possibly, in what is only a temporary condition, and in a Measure which is meant very largely to mark time, as I said quite frankly yesterday, work out a scientific mathematical tariff which will be absolutely watertight and leave no discretion for the human element, the Minister himself.
I appeal to the Committee that they should not ask us to say exactly at the present time by what formula we are to be guided in our operations. I gave a number of examples to the House yesterday and to the Committee to-day of importations which, obviously, were far above the usual volume and far above the usual value. Those are the first to be taken. I can promise the House that if we get the Bill on Friday, as we hope we shall, and if the Royal Assent is given then, we shall not be idle over the week-end. We shall at once attempt to deal with those cases which are beyond doubt. Those which are still in doubt we can deal with when we have got through the first rush of dealing with the first of the difficult problems with which we are now faced.
The right hon. Member for Spark-brook asked a question with regard to Class V. Class V, I may remind the House, deals with parcels post transactions. Under the heading of "Parcels Post" are to be found the words "non-dutiable articles." If we exclude articles by the imposition of a duty up to a maximum of 100 per cent. they will then become dutiable articles and will not come into Class V. They will then be included in Class III, so that that point does not apply. I do not think that I need say anything further in regard to the individual trades mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B.
Peto). If at this stage and if during the discussions this week we are to deal with every one of the depressed industries in this country we shall find that we cannot transact the business that is before us. We cannot take each individual trade one by one and point out its merits and its defaults. All that we can do is to have a general survey. We are making now a new departure. There is no exact parallel except in war time for the powers that we are taking, and I cannot do better than ask the. House to grant us their confidence and allow us to use our discretion.

Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question in regard to manufactured foodstuffs?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Manufactured foodstuffs do not come into Class III of the categories which were mentioned yesterday. I would remind the House of what I said then:
As this is a forestalling Bill aiming for a comparatively short period at keeping the field clear for future action, we have not included agriculture, because forestalling in agricultural produce from its nature is scarcely practicable to any serious extent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1931; col. 551, Vol. 259.]
What my right hon. Friend had in view were preserved foods. We have not dealt with them because we wish to leave them, along with other subjects which are germane to agriculture, for the policy which will be enunciated in due course by the Minister of Agriculture. We do not wish to confuse that matter with the Bill now before the House.

Sir B. PETO: When the Board of Trade have got through what the right hon. Gentleman calls the first rush, would he welcome representations made by different industries to show that there is abnormality in their case which perhaps is not apparent upon the face of the Board of Trade figures?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think I can promise that no case that is brought to the notice of the Board of Trade will remain unexamined.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I wish to add one word because I desire to respond to what the President of the Board of Trade has said. It is the desire of this House to give full confidence to the Government but I am a little puzzled, and
other Members are a little puzzled, at the precise way in which the President of the Board of Trade will exercise this great discretion. Surely if he wishes the House to repose complete confidence in him, to give him a completely free hand, he would hardly have chosen the word "abnormal," because "abnormal" presupposes a norm, and & norm is a, question of fact. The Government exercise an even greater discretion if they simply used the word "excessive." If the President of the Board of Trade had to decide whether my consumption of alcohol at any given meal was excessive he would be able to exercise complete discretion as to what he regarded as an excessive consumption, but if he had to decide that my consumption of alcohol was abnormal he would have to have a wider knowledge than I think he possesses as to the normal quantity I may consume. What we really want an assurance upon is this, that there can be no question that any decision by the Board of Trade under the Bill when it becomes an Act can be upset by the Courts on the ground that the Board of Trade cannot possibly be satisfied that the importation is abnormal if, in fact, it does not exceed the norm of the last two or three years. That is the assurance we require; and precisely because we wish to place confidence in the Government.

Mr. AMERY: I think the Amendment has served its purpose in drawing from the President of the Board of Trade an answer so vague that I hope and believe it means that he is going to use the very widest discretion in his interpretation of the word "abnormal" and is not going to be restricted to a narrow comparison between the figures of a particular week or month and those of the previous year. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to wait and see. Well—
I do not ask to sec the distant scene One step enough for me.
It is not enough for everybody, because I have had a telegram given to me in which I read:
Runciman's Bill is not in my opinion of any use. Could you move an Amendment to the effect that a minimum tariff of 33⅓ per cent. be imposed on fully manufactured goods immediately.
I do not know, Captain Bourne, whether I have permission to move such an Amendment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Member cannot move that Amendment because it is without the King's Recommendation.

Mr. AMERY: I will content myself with withdrawing the Amendment and hoping in the near future.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 15, after the word "articles", to insert the words:
provided that, in the case of articles manufactured within the British Empire, the maximum duty shall not exceed two-thirds of that chargeable in respect of goods imported from, or manufactured in foreign countries.
In the speeches up to a short time ago no mention has been made of the position of the Dominions under these regulations. Composed as it is, this Parliament would wish some clear statement to be made by the Government on the matter. The Amendment proposes a preference of one-third, or 33⅓ per cent. I noticed just now that when my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) was making a very excellent first speech as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, he said that the Government proposed to give the Dominions 100 per cent. preference. I concluded then that the Government intended that the Dominions should be left entirely out of the operation of the Bill. If the Government have not met my point already they should find it easy to make a statement that the Dominions will be kept entirely outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend need not be in the least alarmed. I have already made the declaration, and I make it again, that no articles which are Empire products will be chargeable to duty under the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would thank my hon. Friend. I did hear him make his statement earlier, but he did not make it in quite those words. Having got everything that I want, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in line 18, to leave out from the word "shall" to the word "it," in line 20, and to insert instead thereof the words "not come into operation until",
10.30 p.m.
I move this Amendment on behalf of the Labour party in the hope that the. (Government will now pay attention to the very real claim that we have made. The Government have to-day heard very grave apprehensions expressed, especially by Liberal Members supporting the Government, as to the effect of the Bill. I would ask the Minister to pay special attention to what I say, because he has not paid us his usual courtesy when Members of the Labour party have been speaking. There is a special obligation on the right hon. Gentleman, because he has supporters before him, behind him and on cither side of him, and as a small minority we deserve the utmost consideration and courtesy. Hon. Members opposite won the last election by stampeding the electors. They drove men and women to vote in fear. The result has been to pack the House with a crowd of Members who do not know exactly for what they stand, and who have not yet fully recovered from their surprise at being here There are Members in this House who may be termed "old hands" and who have returned to the old game. They are playing it in the presence of newcomers who do not know the danger they are in when the old game is being played. They have already started the ramp. The Government having stampeded the electorate has now been stampeded itself and is starting a mad chase which will end in the confusion of our economic and political life.
The Government pleads emergency for this legislation. When did the emergency arise? The Prime Minister was not aware of it less than a week ago when he said in this House that the question of dumping would have to be looked into, that we would have to investigate and consider and examine separately each of the articles of importation and also examine collectively the effects of the imposition of such duties as these upon our general system of trade and commerce. To-day we find from the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that it is not merely a few articles which are to be subject
to these proposals. To-day we hear from him, to my surprise, that in this Imports and Exports List there are, not 39 articles, but 39 pages of articles—I think he said—every single one subject to the attentions of the Board of Trade and liable to be taxed, up to a maximum of 100 per cent.
Are we really in danger of having this system of Protection and tariffs, imposed over the whole of this list? Is each article to be examined separately or has the Prime Minister changed his mind? Is he now in favour of shirking inquiry and shirking discussion by the House of Commons? Is he going to hand over to the President of the Board of Trade supreme authority not over the House but over the economic life of the nation? I think the President of the Board of Trade said that he would have to consult the interests concerned. Before any change was effected in regard to taxation on imported goods a variety of interests, he said, would have to be consulted. How are they to be consulted? Are they to be consulted in the open, in public, or are they to be consulted in private? Are they to be consulted only when they make their own representations, or are they to receive open invitations to state their case before the duties are imposed?
The Prime Minister is the custodian of the rights of the House. He has a great responsibility to the Members who have come here for the first time. More than half the present Members of the House came here for the first time a few days ago. I shall be surprised to find that in their gratitude for being returned here they are prepared to allow the one function which they can perform to be denied to them, and to allow themselves to be gagged and bound and stifled. I shall be surprised to find that these people are willing to accept such a position. Are the new Members who have been dumped into this House to be forestalled by the President of the Board of Trade? I hope not. I hope that there is still some spirit left in these people and that the President of the Board of Trade will be made to prove his case. He has not done so up to the present.
The right hon. Gentleman is a very competent man and I pay tribute to him
freely in that respect. He is especially adept in the use of figures and quantities and proportions. No-one could lead the House of Commons as effectively as he could in regard to those matters but he has not chosen to do so. He has given us no explanation of the character or range of these proposals. The Parliamentary Secretary has been put up but, if I may say so, while he made a very nice maiden speech as a Minister, he made no contribution to the Debate. He quoted a definition by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is quite capable of giving one definition now and another definition some other time, and we still have to ask, What is truth in this matter; what is dumping in reality, what does it convey to the mind of hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House? The Parliamentary Secretary stated that there was an enormous importation of travelling rugs. In my election contest I was faced by an opponent who was a National Liberal, and when he was questioned closely, the only articles of consumption in this country which he was prepared to tax were luxury strawberries and new potatoes. To those, we shall now have to add travelling rugs.
The hon. Gentleman stated that there were people in this House who still suffered from antiquated notions. Really, this House is full of antiquated notions. It has failed to realise the gravity of our economic position, and there are people in this House—young men, I am ashamed to say, almost in adolescence—who think that trifling remedies such as this are able to solve the grave economic difficulties from which we are suffering. Something has been said about abnormal importations. The Bill which we shall discuss tomorrow is an abnormal creation, having two heads, one a Liberal head and the other a Tory head. These two heads are functioning for the same body—a very abnormal creation indeed, which it will be very difficult to operate and to maintain in existence. The Parliamentary Secretary declared his satisfaction at holding office under so distinguished a right hon. Gentleman. If I held the same office, I also might speak highly of my chief, but we expect both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to give us some estimate of the extent and
the duration of these duties, and the number and range of articles which they propose to tax.
What is the value of the goods which the right hon. Gentleman expects to stop coming into this country in the next six months? Is it £20,000,000, £30,000,000, £40,000,000, or £50,000,000? One hon. Member opposite referred to a figure of £250,000,000, and that was a gentleman who occupied office in a recent Tory Administration. What is the estimate of the value of goods that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to stop in the next six months? He must have some idea in his mind. I do not believe he is as casual as he pretends to be. I believe he does know something of what he proposes to do, but I think this House ought to know too, and we have a right to ask him to declare what is the estimate, in round millions—not in pounds, shillings and pence—of the value of the goods he proposes to keep out, because I understand the intention of the Bill is to stop goods coming in, not to raise taxation.
This Bill will not find work for people in this country, but in stopping imported articles it will stop exported articles to at least the same value. Unfortunately, very many business concerns in the distressed countries of Europe are themselves on a very low basis. Germany has had to send to the outside world, in excess of her normal export trade, over £200,000,000 worth of goods this year. Where has she to send them? We have to decide whether Germany is to continue to pay us reparations and send us goods, and if we say that she is to continue to pay us reparations, you must scrap this Bill and allow Germany to send goods to us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Are we, then, to give up our claim for reparations? Germany must export to us. Every country in the world, including ourselves, are sending goods to all parts of the world at less than a fair cost level. I represent the great mining industry in which over 800,000 people are still employed, and we expect to export this year 40,000,000 or 50,000,000 tons of coal. I say in all seriousness that every single pound of coal sent abroad from this country is sold at a price below a fair level of cost of production. Every single pound of coal sent from this country is sweated coal—[Interruption".] I have done 23 years of the sweating, and I
know something more about it than the hon. Gentleman.
There is complaint in every country in the world about dumping. Who are the chief dumpers in the world to-day? Great Britain.[Interruption.] Of course it is. Go to any Continental city you like, and you will see British goods displayed openly in the shops, and the people passing the shop windows say: "There are more English dumped goods; there is the cause of unemployment in our country." If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to kill trade altogether, he would be well advised to stop fooling with this Bill. He knows very well that it cannot lead to an expansion of our trade, for if you contract imports you contract exports to the same level. You bring still more embarrassment and difficulty to our already impoverished customers in all parts of the world. Suppose you prevent Germany selling £20,000,000 worth of goods to us; she is £20,000,000 worth poorer, and she is therefore a less effective purchaser from us in those commodities which we claim are not dumped commodities. If we stop Spain, Italy, France and our other European customers selling to us, we by the same measure stop their purchasing power to buy from us the goods that we have to sell.
There never has been a more illogical and more stupid proposal before this House. I would like to know much more details about it. We are content that the Bill should be passed, but we do insist that before any single one of these Orders operates, the House shall be told what the facts are about the goods that are to be prohibited from importation into this country. We are just as much elected Members of this House as the Members of the Government, and we want the right to examine the list and to put our views against theirs in the light of day and in the public eye. I believe that when the list is examined —[Interruption.] The hon. Member has made a thousand interruptions, and I shall listen with pleasure to the first real speech he makes. I believe that we have a right to the fuller examination of the list of articles which is asked for in this Amendment, and if we are denied that right it will be an injustice, not only to this party but to the country as a whole.

Mr. PRICE: I rise to support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend, and as a new Member of this House I wish to protest against our passing any Measure which gives a Minister the power of imposing taxation on a number of articles without the consent of this House. I come to the House with a great respect for the liberties and privileges which it has enjoyed for many centuries, liberties which were won at a great sacrifice, and I do not intend quietly to hand over those liberties and privileges either to the President of the Board of Trade—[an HON. MEMBER: "Or the Trades Union Congress"] This Bill, which involves an entire change in the fiscal policy of the country, asks us to hand over to the Minister power to levy taxes on numerous articles before we have had an opportunity of considering and weighing up the facts in regard to them. The President of the Board of Trade has used observations which have created some confusion in the minds of Members of this party. In one statement he said that the balancing of our trade depended very largely on increasing our exports, and that serious consideration ought to be given to that question. While we are asked to hand full powers to the Minister to tax a large number of articles, we have been told nothing as to the countries whence they come. Many of us on this side are interested in the coal industry. Thousands of men are unemployed in the coal industry, yet no one would suggest that that state of affairs has arisen through excessive coal imports. The export trade is an important part of the coal industry, and we are anxious to know whether the imports on which taxes are to be levied come from countries which now purchase our coal, and which, in consequence, will be likely to cease purchasing that coal.
Many of the articles in the list come from Scandinavia and Central Europe, where we find some of the biggest markets for our coal. Those articles come here in return for the coal which we export. If there is an attempt being made in this Bill to balance our trade, we wish to know, and have a right to know what are the articles affected, and where they come from, and we ought to see that in imposing our duty we do not shut off our own customers on whom many of our heavy
industries are dependent. I have not heard anything suggested in connection with this Resolution which goes a stage further than the protection of our British manufactures. If there is going to be Protection, and Protection is to be the future policy of this country, I suggest it ought to go further than the protection of the manufactures alone. If there is a case made out for Protection, I suggest that the retailer wants protection, and the housewife and the man in the street. It is fair to assume—for otherwise this suggested duty would be of no avail—that if you are going to put on a duty it means that similar articles in this country will go up in price and the cost of living will advance.
Therefore, we have a right to know these details, and I am surprised that Members of the House should be frittering away their liberties and privileges as easily as they are, and leaving behind the traditions for which their forefathers and mine have fought, and which we ought to be proud to maintain. I consider that we are dealing with this matter in quite the wrong way. The Minister suggested in his observations la6t night that some consideration should be given to our export trade. That is the issue which should be dealt with, and we should be spending our time far better if we were dealing with exports, and endeavouring to increase them, than dealing with duties on imports. Therefore, I support this Amendment and trust that Members will recognise that it is in the protection of their own liberty in the first instance, and that we have a right to know, in regard to whatever duty is going to be imposed, the articles on which it is to be imposed, and the countries from which they come. Therefore, I shall certainly vote for this Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) has asked a number of questions in the course of a maiden speech delivered, if I may say so, with a very wide knowledge and pleasantness of manner, to which I fear I cannot give an answer here and now. The question before the House, and the subject-matter of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite with so much vigour, is really one of procedure.
It is not a question as to whether the House shall or shall not discuss these matters. We are providing in this Resolution, and hon. Members will find provided in the Bill, the proviso that the Orders shall come up for discussion in this House within 28 days of the issue of the Orders.

Mr. LANSBURY: Suppose Parliament is not sitting.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Then it is within 28 days of the resumption of Parliament. The difference between discussion before a duty is imposed and after will be, I venture to suggest, practically nothing. The same opposition will be offered by hon. Gentlemen opposite then as is being offered now. The issue of Orders could not be delayed without impairing the whole of their value. If, for instance, we had to have discussion in this House before the Orders could be brought in, it would mean there would be considerable time lost and that the forestalling which is now taking place would still continue and be accelerated, and the effect of prompt action would be entirely destroyed by reversing the order of our procedure. It is only a matter of procedure, and there is really no question of imperilling the traditions of the House in the least.
When I have said that, I have said all there is to be said on the Amendment. If we are to operate this Bill we must be able to operate it promptly and completely. We must not give too much notice of what we are going to do, as otherwise we should find ourselves defeated in our object, for we should be in exactly the same position, if we gave long notice, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in March and April if he were to tell the interests concerned the taxes he was about to impose. We must give these matters practical consideration, and remember that those wit); whom we are dealing would be able to act more promptly than we could under this Amendment. We must adhere to the Bill, and ask the House to give power to issue the Orders and bring those Orders down to the House for discussion, and for the sanction which, I hope, we shall obtain.

Mr. LANSBURY: The President of the Board of Trade has not answered our criticisms at all. [Laughter.] I know
that this question is considered by some hon. Members opposite as a matter of amusement, but I would like to remind them that to-night, to-morrow, and on Thursday we are going to alter the whole fiscal system of this country. There is no doubt about that. Our fiscal system is going to be changed without this House knowing the form of the change, the duties which are to be imposed, or the articles upon which the duties are to be placed. I am sure that when the history of this Measure comes to be written, it will be regarded as one of the most revolutionary proposals that has ever been passed by this House. I think it is rather unworthy of the President of the Board of Trade to say that we are adopting only a little different procedure by this Motion, because he knows perfectly well that he has now at his disposal all the information and power that would enable the Board of Trade to act rapidly and to put what he wants to do into force next week.
The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he could have got the powers he requires by a special Motion, and what he has said in reply to our arguments is simply begging the whole question. The position could have been safeguarded by a Motion providing that goods would be liable to the tax even if they were imported before the Bill was passed. Anyone would imagine that notice had never been given before that if certain articles came through when a duty was going to fee levied, those articles would have to bear the tax like any other articles. When the right hon. Gentleman tells my hon. Friends that they will have an opportunity to discuss these tariffs within 20 days of their imposition, he knows that that is a most elusive opportunity. When the House rises none of us know when we are coming back—it may be three months or two months—but whatever the period the tariffs will then have been levied and enforced.
11.0 p.m.
Our main objection has never been met, either by the right hon. Gentleman, or by the Lord President of the Council, who moved this Motion and then left the House. No one has thought it worth while to take up the constititutional question; of all the constitutionalists in the House, none has troubled to stand up to night and defend this position, because
each knows that it is an indefensible position. To-night you are acting as if the country was at war, and something had to be done instantly. [Interruption.] We all know that, if these right hon. Gentlemen can act instantly, there is no reason why they should not now table their proposals. It is because they do not know what they are going to do, because this "doctor's mandate" has been given to a set of doctors who disagree. They have not yet made up their minds, and consequently they cannot let the House have its constitutional procedure. Because that is the case, we are going to register our protest against it, so that in the days to come it will be recorded that only the Socialists defended the rights of the House of Commons.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman—I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the Government's interpretation of the position for which they are asking is that, the moment they make an Order, it shall operate, hut that the House shall have power to discuss the Order after it has been made and put in operation, and, if the House cares to do so, to reject the Order after it has been in operation; but that the power to operate the Order must be left in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, the power of veto resting with the House after the Order has been made. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it may be five, six, seven or eight weeks before the House of Commons could meet again to veto the right hon. Gentleman's conduct. I think that that is a wrong procedure, but it was the procedure adopted by the party of the present Leader of the Opposition in the case of the Anomalies Bill. [Interruption.] It may be right or it may be wrong, but I want to say frankly that in that case poor people's benefit was involved, and they had as much right to have their Orders discussed as those to whom tariff duties will be applied. This problem is not being settled here to-night. The position in the case of the Anomalies Bill is exactly what the position is said to be here to-night, and I cannot see any consistency in taking people's benefit away
under that Bill and at the same time objecting to this proposal.
The reason for this is not so much the necessity for Orders in Council in a hurry, but, as I see it, the desire to take away the discussions that we should have here, and put them into the Cabinet. If the Government had not this power, the House of Commons would discuss and decide the issues; but the right hon. Gentleman knows, and I know, and everyone in the House knows, that there are great differences of opinion in the Cabinet as to what is to be done and what is not to be done, and, instead of our having public discussions and public resolutions on what ought to be done, we are transferring from a public decision to a private decision of the Cabinet the wrangles which ought to take place on the Floor of the House of Commons. No one knows that better than the leading Protectionists in the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) knows that they are rent in twain as to what should be done. The Home Secretary thinks differently from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Lord Privy Seal thinks differently from both. The Prime Minister never knows what he is thinking. Everyone in our party knows that he used to tell us one day one thing and the next day another, according to the state of the weather, and always in the background, if he was not getting on too well, having the newspapers publish that his health was not too good. The differences are there. The President of the Board of Education and the President of the Board of Trade were two Liberals of a different kind. The Home Secretary is another Liberal of a different kind. Then you have the Foreign Secretary, another Liberal of a different kind. In Conservatism it is the same.
We could have had the Resolutions debated here, but they are going to transfer it to a wrangle inside the Cabinet itself and, instead of the House of Commons registering a public decision, we are going to have all sorts of party views at work in the worst possible fashion, without public scrutiny, this Cabinet Minister saying, "I will back you for this if you will back me for that," all manœuvring for position. That is not for the good of Parliament and it is bad from the Tory point of view. It will be
a half-baked business which will be creditable to none concerned at the finish. The Liberals seem of all people to have deserted their principles the most. They have stood in the past for freedom and clear discussion. They had men like Sir Charles Dilke and others who faced the House of Commons in days of unpopularity for open discussion and freedom. To-day the Liberal party without protest see the public rights of the House of Commons transferred to the worst kind of Cabinet of all. In the old days Cabinets were bound by the principle of an idea. Conservatives may have differed about tariffs in all their aspects, but in principle they were all Tariff Reformers. Here you are transferring it to what we call in Scotland a mixsey maksey hotch potch. Let them be frank. Let them say in public what they have been saying about the Home Secretary in private. They transferred the President of the Board of Trade into his post because on the eve of the election he made a speech—not the Savings Bank speech, though he was entitled to be rewarded for that. Anyone who can arouse feelings like that is entitled to his reward. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He has gone over. Now he is prepared even to tie up his principles knowing that he is doing wrong. Those who want Protection want to see it a success and are not prepared to follow the Prime Minister's usual plan by putting it off and hiding it. I only hope that on this occasion the Protectionists in due time will see the Prime Minister in the proper light and in his proper colours, and I have no doubt that they will not stand him for two years and three months but will have disposed of him long before that time elapses.

Mr. THORNE: I do not propose to discuss the pros and cons of the Government's proposition, but wish to make a correction of a statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He led the Committee to believe that orders made by the late Labour Government were on all fours with the powers now asked by the President of the Board of Trade. He must know that there is a good deal of difference between the powers asked by the President of the Board of Trade and the powers asked by the Labour Government.

Captain FRASER: There is a good deal of substance in the complaint that the House of Commons is being asked to abrogate its usual rights to discuss in detail proposals of the importance of those to be included in the Bill. After all, the times and the circumstances are unusual, and perhaps one of the greatest attributes of this House is its capacity, having regard to its constitution, to adapt itself to circumstances. Surely, if there is any outstanding feature of the position arising from the recent election, it is something in the nature of a demand from the electors that the ordinary machinery of House of Commons procedure shall, I will not say, be abrogated or set aside, but modified to suit the urgency of the present time. If the House of Commons was not competent to adapt itself to the needs of special circumstances, it would not be competent to serve the nation at all.
I feel that the statement which has been made by the President of the Board

of Trade carries conviction, but affirms that unless this procedure is granted to him—procedure under which he can act and then come to the House for confirmation—the whole object for which the Bill will be brought in to-morrow will be nullified. If in those circumstances the House of Commons finds itself unwilling to modify its usual machinery to meet the emergency, then, as I say, it will fail to do its duty. I hope, therefore, that protest having been made and it having been explained and admitted and agreed that it is an exceptional time, and that having regard to the exceptional time exceptional proceedings are asked for, the House may be ready to grant the Minister this Resolution in order that we may get on with our business.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 43.

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[11.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dunglass, Lord


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Eady, George H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Caine, G. R. Hall
Eales, John Frederick


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Eastwood, John Francis


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ednam, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Carver, Major William H.
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey


Aske, Sir William Robert
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Elmley, Viscount


Atkinson, Cyril
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Erskine-Bolst. Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Christie, James Archibald
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Keisey
Clarry, Reginald George
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Flanagan, W. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Colman, N. C. D.
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Colville, Major David John
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Conant, R. J. E.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bernays, Robert
Cook, Thomas A.
Gledhill, Gilbert


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cooke, James D.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Copeland, Ida
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Goldie, Noel B.


Blinded, James
Cranborne, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Craven-Ellis, William
Gower, Sir Robert


Borodale, Viscount.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Granville, Edgar


Boulton, W. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Graves, Marjorie


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Greene, William P. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Guinness, Thomas L, E. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Croom-Johnson, R. p.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bracken, Brendan
Cross, R. H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Crossley, A. C.
Hales, Harold K.


Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hanley, Dennis A.


Briant. Frank
navies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Richard George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harbord, Arthur


Broadbent, Colonel John
Denville, Alfred
Hartington, Marquess of


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dickie, John P.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Buchan, John
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Burghley, Lord
Duggan, Hubert John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)
Hepworth, Joseph


Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Hillman, Dr. George B.
Martin, Thomas B.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Millar, James Duncan
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mills, Sir Frederick
Scone, Lord


Hornby, Frank
Milne, Charles
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Horobin, Ian M.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Molson, A. Harold Eisdale
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison, William Shephard
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Munro, Patrick
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen.Sir R.(Montr'se)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hutchison,William D.(Essex, Romf'd)
North, Captain Edward T.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Nunn. William
Sumerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
O'Connor, Terence James
Soper, Richard


Janner, Barnett
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Patrick, Colin M.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peat, Charles U.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Ker, J. Campbell
Penny, Sir George
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Stevenson, James


Kimball, Lawrence
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stones, James


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Storey, Samuel


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Petherick, M.
Stourton, John J.


Knebworth, Viscount
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pickering, Ernest H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Summersby, Charles H.


Leckie, J. A.
Potter, John
sutcliffe, Harold


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Lees-Jones, John
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Templeton, William P.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pybus, Percy John
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Hector victor Alpin
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomson, Mitchell-. Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Liewellin, Major John J.
Ramsbotham, Herswald
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Ramsden, E.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Rankin, Robert
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Rea, Walter Russell
Train, John


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Mabane William
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Remer, John R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Warrender. Sir Victor A. G.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


McEwen, J. H. F.
Robinson, John Roland
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


McKeag, William
Ropner, Colonel L.
Weymouth, Viscount


McKie, John Hamilton
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ross, Ronald D.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McLean, Major Alan
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Rothschild, James L. de
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Runge, Norah Cecil
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wise, Alfred R.


Magnay, Thomas
Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Womersley, Walter James


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wood, Major M McKenzie (Banff)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Marningham-Buller. Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Major Isidore



Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Salt, Edward W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marjoribanks, Edward
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert




Ward and Major C. Davies.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Leonard, William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
McGovern, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Maxton, James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major James




Parkinson, John Allen
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Price, Gabriel
Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. David
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Thorne, William James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

Original Question Put.

The committee divided: Ayes, 336; Noes,40.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[11.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney, N.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crooks, J. Smedley
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crookehank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Albery, Irving James
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Cross, R. H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Crossley, A. C.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (Montr'se)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Culver-well. Cyril Tom
Hutchison, William D.(Essex, Romf'd)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.


Aske, Sir William Robert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Denville, Alfred
Janner, Barnett


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dickie, John P.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Donner, P. W.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dower, Captain A. V. G,
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Barrie, sir Charles Coupar
Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J. Campbell


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Dunglass, Lord
Kimball, Lawrence


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Eady, George H.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Beaumont, R. E. B.(Porttm'th, Central)
Eales, John Frederick
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Eastwood, John Francis
Knebworth, Viscount


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Eden, Robert Anthony
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bernays, Robert
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Latham. Sir Herbert Paul


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Ednam, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Leckie, J. A.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Elmley, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Blindell, James
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lees-Jones, John


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Borodale, Viscount.
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Levy, Thomas


Boulton, W. W.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Liddall, Walter S.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Bracken, Brendan
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Liewellin, Major John J.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Flanagan, W. H.
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Locker-Lampson, com. O.(Handsw'th)


Briant, Frank
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lumley, captain Lawrence R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mabane, William


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Buchan, John
Goldie, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Burgnley, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
McCorquodale, M. S.


Burnett, John George
Graves, Marjorie
McEwen, J. H. F.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Greene, William P. C.
McKeag, William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Caine, G. R. Hall
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Major Alan


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hales, Harold K.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hanloy, Dennis A.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Carver, Major William H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.




Magnay, Thomas


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Harbord, Arthur
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cazalet, Thelma (Isllington, E.)
Hartland, George A.
Manningnam-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Chamberlain,Ht.Hn.SIr J.A.(Birm.W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Marjorlbanks, Edward


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A,
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Martin, Thomas B.


Christie, James Archibald
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hepworth, Joseph
Mills, Sir Frederick


Cobb, sir Cyril
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Milne, Charles


Colman, N. C. D.
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Colville, Major David John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitcheson, G. G.


Conant, R. J. E.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Molson, A. Harold Eisdale


Cook, Thomas A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cooke, James D.
Hornby, Frank
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Copeland, Ida
Horobin, Ian M,
Morrison, William Shephard


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard, Tom Forrest
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Craven-Ellis, William
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Munro, Patrick


Nall, Sir Joseph
Ropner, Colonel L.
Storey, Samuel


Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Rosbotham, O. S. T.
Stourton, John J.


Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ross, Ronald D.
Strauss, Edward A.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


North, Captain Edward T.
Rothschild, James L. de
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Nunn, William
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Summersby, Charles H.


O'Connor, Terence James
Runge, Norah Cecil
Sutcliffe, Harold


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A(P'dd'gt'n.S.)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tslde)
Templeton, William P.


Patrick, Colin M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb


Peake, Captain Osbeit
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Pearson, William G.
Salmon, Major Isidore
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Peat, Charles U.
Salt, Edward W.
Thomson, Mitchell-. Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Penny, Sir George
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Percy, Lord Eustace
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Petherick, M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Train, John


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verirpt'n,Bilston)
Scone, Lord
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pickering, Ernest H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Pike, Cecil F.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Potter, John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Raikes, Hector Victor Alpin
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Weymouth, Viscount


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsbotham, Herswald
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsden, E.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rankin, Robert
Soper, Richard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rea, Walter Russell
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Womersley, Walter James


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)



Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Stevenson, James
Major G. Davies and Lord Erskine.


Robinson, John Roland
Stones, James



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution reported.
That—

(i) there shall be charged on any articles imported into the United Kingdom, being articles to which this Resolution applies, in addition to any other duties of Customs, such duties of Customs as are hereinafter provided;
(ii) the articles to which this Resolution shall apply shall be articles of any class or description comprised in Class III of the Import and Export List issued under the authority of the Treasury and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the year 1931, to which the Board of Trade, being satisfied that those articles are being imported into the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities have by
820
Order applied any Act of the present Session for giving effect to this Resolution;
(iii) the Customs duties to be charged as aforesaid in respect of any articles shall be such duties as may he specified in an Order made by the Board of Trade under the said Act not exceeding one hundred per cent. of the value of the articles;
(iv) the Act aforesaid shall continue in force for a period of six months from the passing thereof and no longer;
(v) any Order made by the Board of Trade as aforesaid shall cease to have effect at the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a Resolution of this House:

821
Provided that in reckoning any such period as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which this House is adjourned for more than four days;
(vi) the Act aforesaid may include such incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary or expedient in relation to the matters aforesaid."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Runciman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Major Elliot, Mr. Hore-Belisha, and the Solicitor-General.

ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL,

"to make provision for the imposition of duties of Customs on articles wholly or mainly manufactured which are being imported into the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities, and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and lead the First time; to be read a Second Time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.

Ordered,
That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Ten Members:"—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Attlee, Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Macpher-son, Sir Herbert Samuel, the Solicitor-General, and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay be nominated Members of the Committee."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is one point arising out of the appointment of these committees which I think ought to be brought forward at the outset. I am not objecting to the appointment of this Committee; it is a question of the composition of this and similar committees. For good or for ill, there are four or five of us— six in all perhaps, but five that I know of—who are outside the orthodox Labour party and inside none of the other parties. With one exception all of us have been Members of this House for nine years; and the remaining one has been a Member for more than a year. As Members of the House we claim that we are entitled to have some share in—
at least to be taken into consultation in some way—the appointment of these committees. I do not mind if the House says that we are not to have Members on any of these committees. If that is the agreement between the Labour party and the Government, I do not mind. But this Privileges Committee is one of the most important of the committees, and, may I add, so far as I know we are about the only Members who would be likely ever to have to appear before it. [Interruption.] Yes, that is all the more reason why this House, which claims to show so much fairness and sportsmanship,, should see that our group have consideration in the matter.
We have not been consulted in any way about the membership of the Committee. Members are to be appointed who are junior to us and have much less Knowledge of the procedure of the House. I know that I cannot claim representation, and will not claim representation, on every committee; it would be cheeky, impertinent, and unfair to do so, for there are only four of us; but we want to raise the question of the right of representation on these committees. I ask the Chief Whip, who is in charge of these matters as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, to give us some guarantee that the four or five of us shall not be completely shut out from these committees. If that is the view which is to be taken, then I do not object; we will do our best, and we will fight it; but, whatever may be said against the four or five of us, we do pay attention to our public duties, and we ought to have some representation on committees; at least we ought to be consulted about the matter.
I feel sore about this committee from two points of view. We have the new Patronage Secretary starting on a new and difficult job. I could be a handful, as he knows and I know. There is nothing more to be said about it; we just know it. I do not want him to start off with a feeling that he can rush things, because we are a small body. If he wants to do that we cannot beat him; whatever we do he will ultimately win; but, as a comparatively young man starting on these new duties, I think he would have done better by giving us representation on this committee, which we think terribly important. The only member
to appear before this committee in my nine years' experience came from this small band. I am not going to press for representation on this committee now; as certain men have been asked to serve it would be unfair to try to shift them; but I do want to ask of the Chief Whip as a courtesy, or if not as an act of courtesy, as a matter of justice, that there should be some form of consultation with us about committees and things like private legislation, in order that we may secure some form of representation.

Mr. J. JONES: May I be allowed, as one who has never been on any important Committee—for I am not considered important enough—to ask why any four Members of this House who care to group themseluves together should claim special privileges? We on these benches are loyal Members of the Labour party. Some of us do not accept all the decisions of that party, just in the same way as hon. Members opposite did not accept all the decisions of their own party when they were against us and we were in the majority. I happen to be one of the minority Members of the Labour party. I have stood for Socialist principles all the time I have been a Member of this House, but there are some Members who seem to think, if the party will not go the way they want them to go, then they do not belong to the party. That will not work. This Committee represents all parties in equal proportions. My hon. comrade who believes in honour when it suits him, does not believe in the principle when it does not agree with his particular digestion. Is every section in this House going to be placed on this Committee of Privileges? Will the hon. Member agree that all of us in the Labour party should have our separate representatives? If he does not agree, what does he mean?

Mr. BUCHANAN: If you had listened, you would understand.

Mr. JONES: I have listened to you, very often with great interest and very often with mystification. I sometimes wonder what you mean and other times I wonder what you want.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member addressing me?

Mr. JONES: I only wanted to say to the hon. Member that if you are going to claim representation at all, a party is a party and a team is a team, and if you cannot agree with us, for Heaven's sake do not attack us.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I really do not think there was any necessity for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to adopt the slightly provocative attitude which he adopted towards myself. It was only two days ago that the hon. Gentleman came to see me, and I do not think he can accuse me of treating him with any disrespect or lack of courtesy. In fact, I think he will agree that I met him in a very fair spirit. I may say that my object, as Chief Whip of the National Party, is to promote the smooth working of this House and to do all I can to avoid friction of any sort or kind. It will be my duty and my wish to see that the parties in the House get fair representation on whatever Committees are set up, and I shall do all in my power to secure that that is done.

The Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Attlee, Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Herbert Samuel, the Solicitor-General and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay accordingly nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Five be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes before Twelve O' Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

By virtue of an Act passed in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, intituled, "An Act to repeal so much of two Acts made in the tenth and fifteenth years of the reign of His present Majesty as authorises the Speaker of the House of Commons to issue His Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for making out Writs for the Election of Members to serve in Parliament, in the manner therein provided, and for substituting other provisions for the like purposes;"

Mr. Speaker has nominated, appointed, and authorised—

The Right honourable James Ian Macpherson, K.C.,
The Right honourable Sir Arthur Herbert Drummond Ramsay Steel-Mait-land, baronet,
Colonel the Right honourable William Graham Nicholson,
Colonel Sir George Loyd Courthope, baronet, M.C.,

William James Thorne, esquire, C.B.E. being Members of the House of Commons, or any one or more of them, to execute all and singular the powers given to the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being, for issuing Warrants to the Clerk of the Crown, in the cases as in the Act specified.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.

In pursuance of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 76, S. 2 (2)), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated the following Fifteen Members of the House of Commons to serve, for the duration of the present Parliament, upon the Ecclesiastical Committee:—

The Right honourable Lord Hugh Richard Cecil,
The Right honourable Viscount Wolmer,
Major the Right honourable John Waller Hills,
Sir Samuel Roberts, baronet,
Sir Henry Strother Cautley, baronet, K.C.,
The honourable Richard Douglas Denman,
The honourable Sir Stafford Cripps, K.C.,
Sir John Haslam, knight,
Captain Sir Ernest Nathaniel Bennett, knight,
Major Sir John Dearman Birchall, knight, J.P.,
Brig.-General Howard Clifton Brown, D.L., J.P.,
Lieut.-Colonel Francis Edward Fremantle, O.B.E.,
Geoffrey le Mesurier Mander, esquire, Doctor Sidney John Peters, M.A., LL.B.,
Thomas Cape, esquire.